Yay Failing Book Stores?

[Garmorn]

I like what Baen's doing, but I worry a lot that the economics of their current approach are going to blow up given cheap, good e-readers (which are clearly coming Real Soon Now, given the existence of pretty good, affordable for obsessive book-buyers e-readers at this time and a lot of activity in the space). When dead tree sales dwarf e-book sales and electronic screens are decidedly inferior to paper, what they're doing works. I'm not sure does in a universe where e-books are the majority of sales and paper books are the niche product.

True, but they also sell e-book formats, so I am not really sure how it all fits together.

Question to every one: Why is it bad to transition from paper to e-books? I know lots of us older folks will not but my grand kids will grow up with e-books. Heck there is a small but growing effort to but the school books out as e-books here in Texas.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Question to every one: Why is it bad to transition from paper to e-books? I know lots of us older folks will not but my grand kids will grow up with e-books. Heck there is a small but growing effort to but the school books out as e-books here in Texas.

There is nothing intrinsically "bad" about eBooks, but to many, they have disadvantages that balance out their advantages:

• It can be more fatiguing to read from a computer screen of any kind than from a printed page.
• eBooks require a power source, day or night.
• As time passes, it is highly probable that data formats for eBooks will change, just as it has for recorded music. That may mean buying new eReaders and even re-purchasing books as the formats change.
• eBooks can short out or be erased by a powerful magnet.

More paranoid types have also pointed out that electronic books are more easily hacked or deleted intentionally, as demonstrated by the recent Kindle fiasco. I know that Texas has enough problems with textbook errors (like the history book that claimed the USA ended the Korean War by dropping The Bomb) without the specter of someone deliberately editing misinformation into them for gags.

This isn't to be read as a screed against eBooks- I'm currently contemplating one for myself and another for my parents- just pointing out that the technology has certain intrinsic issues (which may be impossible to solve), and that for many, printed books are and will remain the "gold standard."

 

[Scribble]

There is nothing intrinsically "bad" about eBooks, but to many, they have disadvantages that balance out their advantages:

• It can be more fatiguing to read from a computer screen of any kind than from a printed page.
• eBooks can short out or be erased by a powerful magnet.

While your other points are valid (not sure I agree it's that big of a deal though) these aren't true.... At least as far as the Kindle is concerned.

The pages aren't anymore straining on the eyes then regular paper (which actually surprised me) and a magnet won't erase the memory in a kindle. It's flash memory- so it's not based on magnetics.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Storage is migrating to the Cloud, too. But that's a whole different kettle of fish.

 

[Rykion]

I wouldn't be too sorry to see the big book stores in my area go. I hate the buy a membership to get a discount model they use. They're a major retailer, I shouldn't have to pay extra to pay less.

I'm not a big fan of the chairs among the books. It's not a library. I'm not going to whisper. I'm not going to pay full price for a book with creases and bent pages. Kids shouldn't be sitting in the aisles writing reports. I'm in the store to browse books and buy. I should mention that I love libraries and there are plenty of good ones in my area.

The coffee shop in the store is alright since it's seperate and most people actually buy the books they take them over there.

I buy most of my non-gaming books at Amazon or Half Price books because they're cheaper and I don't find value in the "services" the big stores provide. I buy most of my gaming stuff from my FLGS because they offer a 15% base discount that increases with bigger purchases. They also have a good selection and are willing to special order things.

 

[Ourph]

My point about buying online was in direct response to someone who was concerned that as online sellers gain market share and B&M stores continue to disappear, they will have more power to drive the book market to an entirely electronic model. This would be termed oligopoly- a market dominated by a small number of large retailers- and its nearly as bad for competition and consumers as a monopoly.

If, as the poster asserted, that dwindling #s of B&M stores is a major concern for that reason, it is logical that he spend more money at the B&M stores.

I'm sorry, that makes absolutely no sense. B&M stores are perfectly capable of selling e-books. Online retailers already sell massive amounts of paper books. One type of retailer isn't intrinsically tied to one product or the other. If people want paper books in the future, the answer is to buy paper books instead of e-books right now. Where they buy those books doesn't make a bit of difference.

Oh wait, I take that back. Since the number of paper books sold will have a direct impact on how likely it will be that paper books will remain available in the future, buying more books at a cheaper price through the online retailers will do more for keeping paper books on the market than buying fewer books at more expensive prices at B&M stores.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Oh wait, I take that back. Since the number of paper books sold will have a direct impact on how likely it will be that paper books will remain available in the future, buying more books at a cheaper price through the online retailers will do more for keeping paper books on the market than buying fewer books at more expensive prices at B&M stores.

Nonsense. Raw numbers of books are irrelevant. The profit per unit is what will keep books viable. The higher their margin per item, the better. And by that standard, e-books win every time, especially for online retailers.

Why do you think that the retailers who do most of their business online are the ones pushing e-readers?

 

[Ourph]

Nonsense. Raw numbers of books are irrelevant. The profit per unit is what will keep books viable. The higher their margin per item, the better. And by that standard, e-books win every time, especially for online retailers.

There is no profit margin on items that don't get sold. So, again, if you want paper books to stick around, the thing to do is keep buying paper books. In fact, buying those paper books from retailers that sell e-readers will let them know that keeping paper books in their inventory is in their best interest.

Why do you think that the retailers who do most of their business online are the ones pushing e-readers?

Are they "pushing" e-readers? I know they "provide" e-readers to their customers who want them, is that the same as "pushing" them?

And to answer the question, I believe online retailers are the primary distributors for e-readers because B&M stores can't compete with the online retailer prices for either the readers or the e-books.

 

[Tale]

Why do you think that the retailers who do most of their business online are the ones pushing e-readers?

Barnes & Noble does most of its business online?

You learn a new fact everyday.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

There is no profit margin on items that don't get sold. So, again, if you want paper books to stick around, the thing to do is keep buying paper books. In fact, buying those paper books from retailers that sell e-readers will let them know that keeping paper books in their inventory is in their best interest.

Agreed. Though, the fewer retailers there are, the less resistance there will be to moving exclusively to one model. Even if you sell 4 physical books for every 1 e-book, they may well pull more total profit from e-books. (I have no proof of that number handy, but have seen all kinds of rampant speculation that it's actually substantially more than that)

And paper is only going to get more expensive, driving the cost of books up.

Are they "pushing" e-readers? I know they "provide" e-readers to their customers who want them, is that the same as "pushing" them?

Marketing bonanza. Feels like a push to me.

And to answer the question, I believe online retailers are the primary distributors for e-readers because B&M stores can't compete with the online retailer prices for either the readers or the e-books.

Nah. Those things are pretty close to price-locked, like i-pods and most name-brand TVs and such. Prices are nearly identical regardless of where you buy it. This is why Best Buy tries to sell you all those useless cables. The high end items have prices that are dictated by the manufacturer. But they can charge you $60 for a cable that cost them $4. Almost all of their profits are on accessories.

Barnes and Noble wants you to buy a Nook so they can have a presence in your life the same way an i-pod gives Apple a presence. People make dumb purchases when they are convenient to make. And what's more convenient than "wired directly to you out of the aether"? If it also means they can eventually stop operating all those expensive stores entirely, stop shipping around all those heavy, expensive, environmentally unsound books entirely... and so on.... well, that's thinking way too far ahead for a corporate brain in this country. They can't usually pull their frontal lobes further ahead than this quarter's balance sheet.

Barnes & Noble does most of its business online?

You learn a new fact everyday.

I don't know that for sure. I do know their online business is growing and last I heard the in-store business was shrinking, but I'm not an industry analyst, just a guy with an internet connection and a quiet interest.