Forbes: US Publishers 2017 results

[GA Russell]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamrow...llion-in-2017/

Online retailers very close to b&m retailers

Highest growth category: non-fiction adult

27% of online sales: eBooks

Publishers' revenues: $26 billion+

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by GA Russell

https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamrow...llion-in-2017/

Online retailers very close to b&m retailers

Highest growth category: non-fiction adult

27% of online sales: eBooks

Publishers' revenues: $26 billion+

Inconceivable, I've been assured here that publishers have been losing money for years. Of course, that number is an estimate. It might carry a bit more weight than a blogger's SWAG, but it is an estimate.

I can believe that the non-fiction adult is the highest growth category. A lot of kiss and tell political books came out last year.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I can believe that the non-fiction adult is the highest growth category. A lot of kiss and tell political books came out last year.

Wouldn't a lot of those be in the childish fiction category?

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

Wouldn't a lot of those be in the childish fiction category?

On both sides of the aisle. Political books have become quite the cottage industry over the past couple of years. If you are a political commentator or where involved in one of the campaigns, then you are practically required to put out a book so you can pimp it in your column.

This is one of the reasons that I tend to point out that you have to look at what came out in a particular year when you start talking about upturn or downturn. Sales figures tend to be driven by specific authors and events. You can really make things look very different depending on what years you include in your comparisons.

[SleepyBob]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Inconceivable, I've been assured here that publishers have been losing money for years. Of course, that number is an estimate. It might carry a bit more weight than a blogger's SWAG, but it is an estimate.

I don't see anything in there about them losing money or not.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by SleepyBob

I don't see anything in there about them losing money or not.

You're right. It's all about revenue, not profit/loss. (I'm guessing there was profit but I guess that information is released individually by the publishers.)

[sealbeater]

I guess the system isn't going anywhere for a while...

[frahse]

Originally Posted by sealbeater

I guess the system isn't going anywhere for a while...

Visit (metaphorically) the history of the Woolworth empire:

The Woolworth Suits made money until the end.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by frahse

Visit (metaphorically) the history of the Woolworth empire:

The Woolworth Suits made money until the end.

Might be a valid point if Woolworth only made suits, given that we are talking about book publishers and revenue on books.

[frahse]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Might be a valid point if Woolworth only made suits, given that we are talking about book publishers and revenue on books.

Sorry, I confused you. I am speaking in the Idiom, the Slang, the Metafor.

ie.

Collins defines "suit" as: (slang) a person wearing a suit; specif., a business executive or a bureaucrat (usually a term of mild derision)Jan 16, 2015
slang - Is the word "suit" offensive (meaning "corporate-looking ...
https://ell.stackexchange.com/.../is...orate-looking-...

Urban Dictionary: suit
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=suit
Slang for a businessman or any authority figure that wears a suit, e.g. manager, boss, supervisor.

slang - Is the word "suit" offensive (meaning "corporate-looking ...
https://ell.stackexchange.com/.../is...rporate-lookin...

Jan 16, 2015 - Collins defines "suit" as: (slang) a person wearing a suit; specif., a business executive or a bureaucrat (usually a term of mild derision)

Suit - Idioms by The Free Dictionary
https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/suit
suit. slang A businessperson. The phrase refers to the formal attire worn by many businesspeople and is typically used in a mildly derogatory way.

SUIT - Slang/Internet Slang - Acronym Finder
https://www.acronymfinder.com/Slang/SUIT.html
3 definitions of SUIT. Definition of SUIT in Slang/Internet Slang. What does SUIT stand for?

Suit definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us...y/english/suit
a suit of armor. 2. Slang. a person wearing a suit; specif., a business executive or a bureaucrat. usually a term of mild derision.

Mainly I speak of the decision making executives that ignored change, fought change and let the company go down the drain while protecting their turf and their bonuses.
Does that ring a bell in that "book selling world" you speak of?

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by frahse

Sorry, I confused you. I am speaking in the Idiom, the Slang, the Metafor.

ie.


Mainly I speak of the decision making executives that ignored change, fought change and let the company go down the drain while protecting their turf and their bonuses.
Does that ring a bell in that "book selling world" you speak of?

I don't really see your point. Woolworth transformed itself into the Foot Locker. That really doesn't sound like suits ignoring change to me.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I don't really see your point. Woolworth transformed itself into the Foot Locker. That really doesn't sound like suits ignoring change to me.

Foot Locker is not "Woolworth's," it was originally a division of the original F.W. Woolworth Company. But the current Foot Locker came out of the Woolworth Corporation, a separate company, created in 1988 by the Woolworth "suits." Obviously it was their "lifeboat" for when F.W. Woolworth department stores collapsed completely (which happened in 1997). So, yes, the suits looked out for themselves while their company foundered.

I miss Woolworth's and Kinney Shoes (where Foot Locker originally came from). I've never been a customer of Foot Locker — nothing personal, I just don't buy expensive tennis shoes.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by frahse

Mainly I speak of the decision making executives that ignored change, fought change and let the company go down the drain while protecting their turf and their bonuses.

Unfortunately, there's doesn't seem to be a good non-fiction book on F.W. Woolworth's decline. But the Wikipedia article you linked in #8 seems to suggest that their problem was they changed too much:

The Woolworth company moved away from its five-and-dime roots and placed less emphasis on its department store chain as it focused on its specialty stores.

What would have happenned if F. W. Woolworth had put their capital into improving their classic medium-sized stores rather than opening Woolco's and, then, later, opening sporting goods stores? It is at least possible that many locations which are today a Dollar General or Poundland would still be a Woolworth.

Also, just because one company failed doesn't mean that others in the industry shouldn't stick to what they know. A&P is gone but supermarkets are still big.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by rcentros

Foot Locker is not "Woolworth's," it was originally a division of the original F.W. Woolworth Company. But the current Foot Locker came out of the Woolworth Corporation, a separate company, created in 1988 by the Woolworth "suits." Obviously it was their "lifeboat" for when F.W. Woolworth department stores collapsed completely (which happened in 1997). So, yes, the suits looked out for themselves while their company foundered.

I miss Woolworth's and Kinney Shoes (where Foot Locker originally came from). I've never been a customer of Foot Locker — nothing personal, I just don't buy expensive tennis shoes.

I must say, I don't really see the difference you are trying to draw. That's just the way corporations work.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I must say, I don't really see the difference you are trying to draw. That's just the way corporations work.

At one time (at least some) corporate heads took pride in the number of employees they hired and how well they treated them. Now they brag about how much they've reduced their workforce and enhanced their corporate bottom line. (Often right before going under, selling off the pieces to vultures and sucking out the marrow from the bones.)