Live data from Hacker News

The unnecessary demise of Barnes and Noble

audreyii-fic.tumblr.com

111–120 of 461 posts

Re: The unnecessary demise of Barnes and Noble

#111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe, but it seems a weird argument to make during record low unemployment. Yes, I'm aware of labor force participation rates, and that the pay for many of these jobs is too low, AI is predicted to destroy jobs, etc, but that's not what we're talking about, right? Admittedly, I'm driving the conversation towards a general problem from this specific example. But I think that even if I accept the premise that right…

we still need to prepare for the future that's coming I disagree, honestly. Not because I don't think all the things you're saying will happen will happen, but because of all the things that are also going to happen that we're not talking about, because we don't know what they are. Yes, tons of jobs are going away (although I think it'll be 10-20 years for most of these, not 3-5 years like many seem to think), but wh…

You are totally right. In the very least no politician would be willing and tell people that there no longer is a need for someone with their skill level to participate in the economy and that we are just going to give them money so that we don't have to worry about them.

Re: The unnecessary demise of Barnes and Noble

#112
I don't agree with the basic premise of the article wrt job security. B&N does not owe you a job. Nobody does.

You got to work at the same company for 20 years? You should be happy and gracious. All things come to an end.

I'm 37 and the longest I've worked at a company was 3.5 years, and that was my own startup. I average about 2-3 years/company. I'd kill to find a company/job where I can stay for 5 years without becoming a dinosaur. But I can't, because it's the startup/tech sector, things move fast, even here in Europe. On the flip-side, you could chose to be more static, risking increased irrelevance, in which case you'll be more upset upon losing your job. But that's the risk/tradeoff.

Re: The unnecessary demise of Barnes and Noble

#113

I remember back when Circuit City fired all of its floor staff and replaced them with entry level (and bottom run wage) workers. Oddly, they went out of business not long after that. You can't race to the bottom in retail, the bottom is already taken by walmart and online stores (like amazon). You can't be cheaper or more convenient, you need to offer something they don't. For bookstores that means you have to have g…

> You can't race to the bottom in retail, the bottom is already taken by walmart and online stores (like amazon). You can't be cheaper or more convenient, you need to offer something they don't. For bookstores that means you have to have good selection, a good environment, author signing/speaking events, and so forth. I made the effort to visit a B&N earlier this month because I was looking for good translations of t…

On a side note, have you checked out this new translation of The Odyssey? https://www.amazon.com/Odyssey-Homer/dp/0393089053/

I haven't read all of it yet but I read a good chunk and it's pretty excellent.

Re: The unnecessary demise of Barnes and Noble

#114
post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there is such space, it will have to be run by kiosk and a few minimum wage employees. B&N's 'competitive advantage' today is not experienced staff. I can't ever recall an employee up-selling significant amounts of merchandise, or having a customer relationship that might move a needle. Like Sears, it has real estate and a terrible retail position. If you treat the stores like mini-warehouses, with Amazon-warehous…

> If there is such space, it will have to be run by kiosk and a few minimum wage employees. I don't think so. Outside of the airport that's not useful to anyone. At that rate you can just go to the section where they have bestsellers at Costco or Walmart. A bookstore with no selection is practically pointless.

No, kiosk-based service, not kiosk-sized stores. You want a big selection, but software or other merchandising helping customers locate things and up-sell.

Target has more merchandise than B&N, but there's no career employee on the floor to suggest that you might like Mossimo if you bought Merona.

Re: The unnecessary demise of Barnes and Noble

#115

Bezos cheerleaders and their ilk never seem to be willing to acknowledge that creating wealth is much harder than extracting it, and either out of bad faith or naivety will misidentify ventures that specialize in the latter as being exemplars of the former. In this case, we have the incalculable loss of so many person-years of experience in a deep topic, literature, that’s being shrugged away as a case of the market…

What experience in literature are you referring to? Do many people ask Barnes and Noble employees for book recommendations?

Re: The unnecessary demise of Barnes and Noble

#116
post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

we still need to prepare for the future that's coming I disagree, honestly. Not because I don't think all the things you're saying will happen will happen, but because of all the things that are also going to happen that we're not talking about, because we don't know what they are. Yes, tons of jobs are going away (although I think it'll be 10-20 years for most of these, not 3-5 years like many seem to think), but wh…

> Yes, tons of jobs are going away (although I think it'll be 10-20 years for most of these, not 3-5 years like many seem to think), but what new sectors, opportunities, jobs, etc. will be created? How many of the people whose jobs are destroyed will be able to move into the jobs that are created? In something like 30 states [0] 'truck driver' is the largest single occupation; where would those skills be re-applied?…

Their skills wont be reapplied, that's not how it works. They'll be valued for something else.

Re: The unnecessary demise of Barnes and Noble

#117
The writing is on the wall for Barnes and Noble, and I can't help but see what they've done here as mirroring what Circuit City did just before they shut everything down. IIRC, they ditched their most experienced sales-people, who were also the highest paid, and not soon there-after, they were done.

That said, I don't entirely agree with the assessment of the author. She sounds like one of the employees that was let go and her view of things might be colored by that. She seems to be over-valuing the contribution these employees made to the bottom line of the business. She may or may not be right; I can't, personally, speak to that -- where I live, there hasn't been a Barnes & Noble nearby in a long time. In fact, the place I work is located on the second floor of what once was a Barnes & Noble. When there was one a couple of miles from my home, I rarely purchased anything from them other than coffee.

This is anecdotal, of course, but I don't know that pulling employees from the floor and putting them to work boxing and shipping orders from the store was such a bad idea. If it did, indeed, decrease shipping time and costs, it would have been a fine use for that staff assuming they could find enough people to buy books online when those people could often save money at Amazon. In the decades that I did spend time at Barnes & Noble, my interactions were limited to the "kinda-Starbucks" folks and the (rare) store teenage cashier. Maybe I am a very specific customer[0]; I went there because of the selection of obscure programming books. I'd often need something not available at my library. They'd have a few options and I wanted to review them before having the library order it.

I buy the argument that it's not necessarily Amazon that was B&N's downfall -- it hurt, a lot, I'm sure and I know former B&N customers who now exclusively purchase via Kindle -- but there are a lot of people like me, who didn't buy books from either place. In a twist of irony, I own a second-generation Nook with the e-paper/color screen. I have never owned a Kindle.

Here's my take on where B&N fell over:

(1) Failure to recognize who the competition actually was. Amazon needn't be mentioned; it's obvious. But the big one for me was my local home-town library. They are just as close, a little bigger, just as nice (sans Fivebucks coffee), but I don't have to spend anything there and being a speed reader (skim/scan style, not the gimmicky nonsense), I get through my book during the borrowing window. They also have an automated self-checkout and self-dropoff, so I wait in far fewer lines. So I'm already inconvenienced by having to gasp drive somewhere, but my library handles the experience entirely better.

(2) Very expensive real-estate: I mentioned that my employer is in a former Barnes & Noble location. Our office is in an incredibly desirable area. I have no idea what the cost is, but I know that homes with fewer bedrooms than I have and half the square footage go for twice the price of my home (and homes just a few miles up the road) in less desirable parts of this suburb. The stores are very pleasant to be in, with expensive furnishings in expensive, convenient areas. These things don't come cheap. There's a reason the mom-and-pop book-sellers are located on the dumpier side of town, often have "use other door" signs posted on 8.5x11 paper with ink-jet Comic Sans all caps print and the books are jammed together on shelves stacked floor to ceiling separated by aisles that are barely large enough to meet ADA requirements... books are low-margin items. Every time I visited a Barnes and Noble for Fivebucks coffee I wondered how, on earth, they stayed in business.

(3) Staffing costs had to be high. Ignoring the whole thing about the CEO and executives making stupid amounts of money[1], the staff requirements to provide the level of customer service required of those customers who do need help, especially those who purchased a Nook and mistakenly thought that driving over to B&N would be helpful in solving their problems, is impossible to do profitably. And I don't think that the quality of their staff would have been the same as the mom-pop bookstores described in point #2. The few mom/pops that I've been to are staffed by book-obsessed individuals; those individuals are often also the owners of the place, and the owners of the place are often the only employees. Thinking back about a decade, when I last went to a B&N, I'm not entirely sure that I never needed help, but I am sure that I never received any. I don't ever recall seeing an employee anywhere other than at the coffee shop or behind the counter ringing people up. Where they had employees, they had to few of them. It always took forever to get out of there with a (rare) purchase; even a (less rare) coffee purchase. I think they are the record holder for me of saving me money through waiting . . . how bad did I want that coffee? 15 minutes, bad? Or that 2600 magazine that had the cool payphone photo that I wanted to keep; do I really want to wait in line behind those 9 other people for the one cashier who's ringing everyone up in their (pointless) common-feeder line?

(4) Inventory costs had to be high. I went to B&N only because I knew they had a huge selection, yet I rarely purchased anything from that selection[2]. I would have never walked into the store if they didn't have that selection, though. It's a lot easier for Amazon to handle that problem. My local library, as well, is massive and actually larger than the B&N was (though they had a more limited programming book selection). Back to point #1, their competition has far fewer difficulties doing what they do.

Of the problems I can see, fixing any of the bottom three would be customer-hostile in (probably) equal ways -- different impacts, but would take enough away that they'd lose a lot of business. Staffing -- the third -- is the only one that can be done quickly and have an immediate impact on the bottom line. The problem, though, is that it's like borrowing money at a higher interest rate to pay off debt[3]. They'll lose high- and probably medium-maintenance customers, and they'll lose customers sympathetic to the employees' circumstances which will drive them into cutting more. It's a downward spiral and they're so close to the bottom, I don't see them having a chance at this point.

[0] Generally, I ended up there in search of books related to programming, networks and other computing topics. They had the largest selection and I could crack the books open and see if they were worth burning the time on, which I would often then do in their coffee shop over a few weekend days. I'd occasionally look over the fiction titles under topics I like, but I don't read fiction, I listen to it and I generally did that by grabbing the CDs or (gasp) tapes from the library.

[1] I'm not disagreeing; it's absurd given that they're failing at their actual job, it's just obvious enough, IMO, that it doesn't require more detail.

[2] PSA- I feel that way about Microcenter, somehow they have almost everything that I can find on Newegg, and they manage to be nearly competitive, price-wise, with them. I don't want them to vanish, though, so I make it a point to do as much of my geek spending there, in-store, even if they are a little pricier; plus ... instant gratification is nice.

[3] Or, as is said all too often by people who aren't thinking about what it is they're actually saying, the equivalent to "digging yourself out of a hole".

Re: The unnecessary demise of Barnes and Noble

#118
post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

we still need to prepare for the future that's coming I disagree, honestly. Not because I don't think all the things you're saying will happen will happen, but because of all the things that are also going to happen that we're not talking about, because we don't know what they are. Yes, tons of jobs are going away (although I think it'll be 10-20 years for most of these, not 3-5 years like many seem to think), but wh…

> Yes, tons of jobs are going away (although I think it'll be 10-20 years for most of these, not 3-5 years like many seem to think), but what new sectors, opportunities, jobs, etc. will be created? How many of the people whose jobs are destroyed will be able to move into the jobs that are created? In something like 30 states [0] 'truck driver' is the largest single occupation; where would those skills be re-applied?…

You may be right, I don't know. I'm not saying we shouldn't worry about this, just that I'm personally skeptical, and not really in favor of restructuring society for a problem that might be coming. If we had done that all those times in the past...

To take the truck driver thing, here's a plausible scenario (to me anyway).

First of all, "top job in X states" seems like a really weird way to express this. It honestly feels like a way to make it seem as dire as possible.

There are something like 3 to 3.5 million truck drivers in the US. That's a lot. However, BLS reports that only about half of these are heavy and tractor trailer truck drivers [1]. So maybe the rest are driving smaller trucks and vehicles around town? Those seem safer from job loss to me, I suspect that any job that requires driving a truck here and there and loading / unloading things will not be replaced by AI as fast.

Side note: BLS is predicting 6% growth in this job from 2016 to 2026, which is about average. But let's assume they're wrong.

So let's say that 1.8 million are long haul truckers that can be relatively easily replaced by AI. How long will that really take? I know everyone thinks that self-driving cars are around the corner, but I'm really not convinced. We've been hearing that for a few years now, and it seems like lots of teams are hitting some roadblocks (heh) in terms of their ability to solve some of the remaining issues. Just my ambient observations though, I'm no expert.

Even if we do get there with some cars in the next 3-5 years, are we really going to be ready to put heavy loads on highways unattended? We're going to handle the technical issues, security issues, legal issues, insurance, in a few years? I'm really skeptical. Maybe we can do point-to-point on highways in 5 years, but then what? Do we have huge lots where these trucks park and then drivers ferry them to local warehouses to be loaded / unloaded? What about fueling these things along the way with no drivers? How do we keep these loads safe from theft? None of these are insurmountable, but are we really going to solve these things in the next few years such that we're ready to start laying people off?

I think 10-20 years is much more realistic to put the majority of truckers out of a job. Not all, but the majority. But truckers are already old (49 average) and many will be retiring over that period anyway. Why can't we just not replace them as those jobs dwindle?

1. https://www.bls.gov/ooh/transportation-and-material-moving/h...

Re: The unnecessary demise of Barnes and Noble

#119
post #22

Amazon's primary customer has shifted to the 3rd-party seller, i.e., it's not profit off water coolers that allows low prices. Looking at Amazon's financials, they make more profit off of selling advertising (lightning deals, search ads & "related" sponsored listings) than margin off sales. It really shows when you look at the lightning deals and find product after product with artificially inflated reviews. Amazon h…

> Amazon has zero interest in fixing this because customers are its product not its customers.

If you think 3rd party sellers are Amazons customers and get much better treatment than end buyers, boy are you barking up the wrong tree.

Re: The unnecessary demise of Barnes and Noble

#120
post #21

I remember back when Circuit City fired all of its floor staff and replaced them with entry level (and bottom run wage) workers. Oddly, they went out of business not long after that. You can't race to the bottom in retail, the bottom is already taken by walmart and online stores (like amazon). You can't be cheaper or more convenient, you need to offer something they don't. For bookstores that means you have to have g…

I think your point about offering what your competitors are not is spot on: a hub that facilitates community and study, events with widely known authors and public figures, and so forth. Portland's Powells book store in the Pearl District nails this, with multiple stories of books that seemingly never end and centered right in the middle of the hustle and bustle of the city. I hope B&N replicates this because I would…

Indeed. I live in an area (Seattle) that has multiple excellent local bookstores (specifically Third Place Books and Elliott Bay). What sets them apart is they have a good selection of books, they have an environment that is conducive to hanging out and reading (Third Place especially), they have lots of recommendations from staff and local book clubs, and they have regular events like book signings and author Q&As, etc. I just checked the closest B&N and they have one non-kids author event between now and the end of March, in contrast the local Third Place has 15, Elliott Bay has even more. Stepping into a B&N it just feels like a generic, lifeless experience, there is basically nothing to recommend it over simply buying a book online. But there's still money and life in selling books at retail, you just have to do it well.

(And yes, for the record Powells is a world class bookstore, every time I visit I always enjoy it and it's always packed.)

Post reply on HN