Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The unnecessary demise of Barnes and Noble

audreyii-fic.tumblr.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 461 posts

Re: The unnecessary demise of Barnes and Noble

#261

Post by goldenkey »

hluska wrote: post #238
watwut wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would really like to know what is wrong with Asimov as suggestion for 14 years old kid.

I downvoted you because of the suggestion that "most books" are appropriate for (and interesting to) 8-14 year old girls. That is so untrue as to border on absurdity. And, I also downvoted this comment because asking why you're being downvoted is not only dull, it adds nothing to the conversation.

It does add to the conversation because we have a somewhat binary outcome for a binary recommendation. If recommending Asimov is wrong, why? Don't just downvote opinions you disagree with. Explanations are noble.

Re: The unnecessary demise of Barnes and Noble

#262

Post by totalZero »

bearjaws wrote: post #152
dragonwriter wrote: post #32

If management is assuring you repeatedly that there will be no layoffs, it's a good sign that layoffs are coming. If management is assuring you repeatedly that specific people will not be laid off, it's a good sign that those people will be laid off. At least this is what always seems to happen, IME.

I will never understand why people become loyal to their employers. You can be proud of your work, career, without being married to your employer. This is the inevitable conclusion to a bookstore competing against Amazon, but they still act surprised...

A long history of good things adds up in one's mind. If your employer has benefited you, it's hard to maintain a mentality of pure rational self-interest.

Re: The unnecessary demise of Barnes and Noble

#263

Post by AndrewDucker »

purplezooey wrote: post #48

I likes this article. This point, though, seemed off: I would double-down on what we can offer that Amazon can’t: enthusiastic staff that can find and upsell books... But it's already been proven, sort of, that this isn't what people want, at least in sufficiently large numbers. That kind of underscores the difficulty of recovering this franchise.

Except that Waterstones profits are up 80%: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/jan/18/waterstones-an...

And from a different article: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/feb/01/waterstones-fi...

"He said book sales were partly being driven by Waterstones’ tactic of allowing staff to stock and push titles they believe would work in their store as well as helping readers discover new or less promoted authors."

Re: The unnecessary demise of Barnes and Noble

#264

Post by pjc50 »

mattmanser wrote: post #244
wnevets wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just another case of business being penny smart and dollar dumb. "Traditional" media did the exact same thing when faced with competition from the internet. They reduced the quality of their service & product when they saw a reduction in customers which only fueled a further reduction in customers, rinse and repeat til death.

It looks more like the idea that paying CEOs lots of money because they are worth it really isn't working. Because they aren't worth it.

"The salary of the chief executive of a large corporation is not a market award for achievement. It is frequently in the nature of a warm personal gesture by the individual to himself." -- JK Galbraith

In certain failing businesses, the activities of senior management aren't directed towards trying to save the sinking ship, but to free up as much cashflow as possible and direct it to themselves. Rather than the creditors who would get it in bankruptcy.

MG Rover is my go-to example, but there are plenty: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2011/may/08/mg-rover-di...

Re: The unnecessary demise of Barnes and Noble

#266

Post by MaxBarraclough »

joekrill wrote: post #235

> The people who lost their jobs had been actively assured this would NOT happen for the past several months. My last employer did this. Not so much the exact scenario, but they constantly assured us they were fully committed for the long-term to our satellite office that they opened. They went out of their way to reiterate this quite regularly and put a good of effort into it. Until one day they showed up and shut d…

A similar thing happens with seemingly healthy companies going bust overnight.

There's a reason they never let anyone know: it would be self-fulfilling if they let the world know they were in trouble.

Re: The unnecessary demise of Barnes and Noble

#267

Post by book_mentioned »

blhack wrote: post #39
rayiner wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the rest of the year, the stores are empty. Which validated the company's decision: why have a bunch of full time employees, when what it really needs is part time and flexible employees to handle holiday surges (probably caused by waiting for Amazon shipping to not be an option).

Not the one near me (in Phoenix, near Arizona State University). It's a major anchor in a shopping center, and is busy every time I'm ever in there. The employees are also really helpful. This Christmas, I was trying to find some books as a christmas gift, and the staff made a bunch of suggestions based on books that they had actually personally read. Sidenote: finding appropriate books for 8-14 year old girls is rea…

Might find something worth the $15 here (ends in 5 days):

https://www.humblebundle.com/books/geek-gals-books

Re: The unnecessary demise of Barnes and Noble

#268

Post by watwut »

hluska wrote: post #238
watwut wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would really like to know what is wrong with Asimov as suggestion for 14 years old kid.

I downvoted you because of the suggestion that "most books" are appropriate for (and interesting to) 8-14 year old girls. That is so untrue as to border on absurdity. And, I also downvoted this comment because asking why you're being downvoted is not only dull, it adds nothing to the conversation.

The other answer to that question "Maybe someone took umbrage with the idea that Asimov stops being interesting after 14?" did added something to the conversation.

Young girls are primary demographic for reading. While it is true that 8 years old are not there, 14 years old already are. Majority of what is in bookstore is appropriate, maybe boring, but I don't recall running into something super inappropriate while randomly browsing bookstore.

Re: The unnecessary demise of Barnes and Noble

#269

Post by hluska »

goldenkey wrote: post #261
hluska wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I downvoted you because of the suggestion that "most books" are appropriate for (and interesting to) 8-14 year old girls. That is so untrue as to border on absurdity. And, I also downvoted this comment because asking why you're being downvoted is not only dull, it adds nothing to the conversation.

It does add to the conversation because we have a somewhat binary outcome for a binary recommendation. If recommending Asimov is wrong, why? Don't just downvote opinions you disagree with. Explanations are noble.

I don't think recommending Isaac Asimov is wrong. Some people really like his writing (myself included).

If you would read my reply again, you'll note that I said, "I downvoted you because of the suggestion that "most books" are appropriate for (and interesting to) 8-14 year old girls."

Frankly, I don't think that's controversial enough to have to explain.

First, it's flat out wrong to group 8-14 year old girls together. The sheer amount that girls grow between those years makes that highly questionable. The kind of book that the average 8 year old would gain from would be insulting to the average 14 year old. And the kind of book that a 14 year old girl would gain from wouldn't make much sense to the average 8 year old.

And yes, there are outliers, but if your child is an outlier, for the love of all that is holy, spend time in bookstores with her and figure out what she's actually interested in. In distributions like this, outliers tend to have very strong interests that overwhelm all the social pressure. If you're dealing with an outlier, figure out those interests and cater to them.

Second, let's look at the word "most". Do we have to talk about how most popular fiction geared towards adults may not be appropriate for the average 8 year old? And what about interest? I'm a 40 year old man who reads voraciously yet "most" books are neither appropriate, nor interesting to me. There isn't anything wrong with that. It's just that we all have interests.

It's annoying when someone edits a comment to ask why they were downvoted. But, it's flat out dull when they edit a comment and then make an entirely different reply to ask the same thing. That adds absolutely nothing to the conversation.

Re: The unnecessary demise of Barnes and Noble

#270

Post by watwut »

hluska wrote: post #269
goldenkey wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does add to the conversation because we have a somewhat binary outcome for a binary recommendation. If recommending Asimov is wrong, why? Don't just downvote opinions you disagree with. Explanations are noble.

I don't think recommending Isaac Asimov is wrong. Some people really like his writing (myself included). If you would read my reply again, you'll note that I said, "I downvoted you because of the suggestion that "most books" are appropriate for (and interesting to) 8-14 year old girls." Frankly, I don't think that's controversial enough to have to explain. First, it's flat out wrong to group 8-14 year old girls toget…

I can see how most books would not be interesting to you, but why would they be "not appropriate"? What does the word appropriate means in this context?
Post reply on HN