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

371–380 of 461 posts

Re: The unnecessary demise of Barnes and Noble

#371

Post by bunderbunder »

sli wrote: post #365
eludwig wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>Two cashiers working out of 8 or so possible registers And the worst part about this is that each cashier seems determined to relentlessly pester me with annoying questions at the register! Did I want to join this loyalty program? Did I realize that I could save $5 by signing up for so and so. Do I want to get on the B&N mailing list? Really aggressive questioning. Oh my God. I realize that the cashiers have been o…

I aggressively avoid buying books on Amazon, mostly for the reasons listed in the article, but between BAM and B&N, I will always go to a local bookstore instead. They don't grill me for PII at the register, for one. Overall the whole experience is way better. Finding a book is a tiny bit harder (emphasis on tiny ), but honestly, I'm not in a hurry when I'm in a bookstore, so I don't care.

They don't grill me for PII, and that is at least a part of why they have an easier time getting it. The local bookstore put out a sign up sheet collecting email addresses, with a little blurb at the top saying what it was for. Nobody ever mentioned it, but after a couple trips of looking at and reading it, I just threw it down on a whim. By contrast, the sense of being actively pressured for my contact info at major retailers just makes me dig my heels in on the subject.

I actually don't think finding a book is harder, either. If I know what I want, I just walk up to the counter and ask. If it's in stock, I go grab it. If it's not, they order it, tell me it'll arrive within a month, and I swing back buy to pick it up it about 2 days later. If I don't know what I want, the staff recommendation slips most independent bookstores put out are great, especially now that I've gone enough times to know which staff members share my reading tastes. And have led me to many, many more delightful books and authors I wouldn't have tried otherwise than Amazon's sad attempts at getting something useful out of collaborative filtering. ("You liked Pride and Prejudice? Well, how about... Sense and Sensibility!! Ta-daaaa, isn't AI amazing!?")

Re: The unnecessary demise of Barnes and Noble

#372

Post by lotsofpulp »

prklmn wrote: post #88
ivraatiems wrote: post #57

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…

>>And as soon as Amazon can make the same amount of money while employing fewer people, they will do so. Every company does. The cycle repeats, only this time more people lose and fewer people gain. Not every company does, every public company does. It seems hard to believe in this day but there are some privately owned family-run businesses that care deeply about their employees and aren’t looking to cut labor costs…

Then their competitors will and steal their market share via lower prices.

Re: The unnecessary demise of Barnes and Noble

#373

Post by Slansitartop »

lmkg wrote: post #350
Sir_Cmpwn wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The failure of brick and mortar book stores is a net negative to society. Deserves to fail, maybe, but it'll suck when they do.

Unlike the Internet, when a break-and-mortar fails it's not easy for a competitor to break into the space and scoop up their market share. In theory in an efficient market, players that deserve to fail will be replaced and the market as a whole will remain and become stronger. In meatspace, where many things have friction, players that deserve to fail will bring the market down. I also wish it weren't the case, but i…

> Unlike the Internet, when a break-and-mortar fails it's not easy for a competitor to break into the space and scoop up their market share.

Also, in this space, there's a competitor that's on it's way to a monopoly. if B&N goes belly-up, I'm not even sure where I could buy books besides Amazon.

Re: The unnecessary demise of Barnes and Noble

#374

Post by jandrese »

mgkimsal wrote: post #309
Bucephalus355 wrote: post #2

Barnes and Noble did some dumb things as this article points out, but they are NOWHERE near what the CEO of Sears is doing. That is corporate malpractice, gross negligence, and perhaps high treason all rolled into one. Literally look up anything online for “Sears CEO is terrible” and you will get links from NY Times, WaPo, etc. Also with BN, I mean they were going up against one of the biggest most powerful companies…

The Sears situation is just sad. I'm not sure why shareholders are putting up with it, except... most probably have just accepted the narrative that sears is dead, and are OK with the sell off and ... yeah, treason isn't a bad word. But... selling off assets you control to another company you also control would seem like... oh.. what's the term? Conflict of interest? I don't understand in the slightest why this has b…

I figure the board must be getting their pockets lined as the CEO guts the company as fast as possible. It's going to be sad but completely predictable when Sears goes under.

Re: The unnecessary demise of Barnes and Noble

#375

Post by jandrese »

xefer wrote: post #290
PostOnce wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

they do it so employees don't quit beforehand, so that they can keep using them to make money until the last second, while not giving them any opportunity to find a new job so they don't miss rent the week after they're fired if it's not illegal it should be, and I'm sure there is some ground for a civil lawsuit in the fact they they assured them they would not lose their jobs, thereby costing them thousands in lost…

There is such a law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_Adjustment_and_Retraini... I'm not sure what the terms of these employee's termination actually is. The article leaves the impression that they were essentially tossed onto the street, but it could be that they were all given the required 60-day notice.

Or they can just say "try and sue us, we'll be in bankruptcy before you get the papers filed anyway".

Re: The unnecessary demise of Barnes and Noble

#376

Post by Slansitartop »

sli wrote: post #365
eludwig wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>Two cashiers working out of 8 or so possible registers And the worst part about this is that each cashier seems determined to relentlessly pester me with annoying questions at the register! Did I want to join this loyalty program? Did I realize that I could save $5 by signing up for so and so. Do I want to get on the B&N mailing list? Really aggressive questioning. Oh my God. I realize that the cashiers have been o…

I aggressively avoid buying books on Amazon, mostly for the reasons listed in the article, but between BAM and B&N, I will always go to a local bookstore instead. They don't grill me for PII at the register, for one. Overall the whole experience is way better. Finding a book is a tiny bit harder (emphasis on tiny ), but honestly, I'm not in a hurry when I'm in a bookstore, so I don't care.

> but between BAM and B&N, I will always go to a local bookstore instead

What's BAM?

Re: The unnecessary demise of Barnes and Noble

#377

Post by visarga »

maccam94 wrote: post #182
visarga wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe we need to acknowledge that we're moving towards having a society where "everyone has a job that earns them their living" is untenable No, we need a society that guarantees everyone a job, a job that will generate the income necessary for survival. We shouldn't give up agency and become simple wards of the state, waiting hand stretched ahead for the UBI to fall from the crumblings at the tech billionaires tab…

Except local production is often less efficient/more expensive. UBI would create a floor for job quality, and allow people to pursue riskier or less capitalistic ventures.

Eventually, when the current people are long gone, maybe it will be standard practice to rely on UBI and it will have a decent value. But in the meantime, there will be huge resource allocation problems.

We need people to defend themselves from big corporations that suck the money out of communities, such as Walmart, Amazon, Comcast, Verizon, large banks, Samsung, Apple, Monsanto, etc as they start automating jobs and paying less in wages.

Re: The unnecessary demise of Barnes and Noble

#378

Post by tjr »

ryandrake wrote: post #369
skywhopper wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only are they ordered to do it but corporate puts requirements on the store as to how many joins they are expected to get each day, and cashiers have their own individual quotas and they get chewed out if they don’t meet them by managers who get chewed out for not meeting them. The fact that this behavior reduces sales throughput, employee productivity, and customer satisfaction are not worked into the analysis t…

If you're lucky you just get chewed out. My wife used to work retail and in one store, you had to push credit cards, often to people who really should not have another one. If you failed to meet your quota you get a warning the first time and then fired the second time.

Setting goals for one person based on what another person chooses to do seems like a phenomenally stupid idea.

Re: The unnecessary demise of Barnes and Noble

#379

Post by Noos »

fatbird wrote: post #211
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).

Nothing here validates B&N's decision. 30 years ago I was a part-time employee at a big box store from October to January. Large retailers long ago figured out how to ramp up their workforce temporarily to adequately handle the sales season that accounts for the largest portion of their sales every year. For any retailer to blow the Christmas sales season by not adequately staffing it, which has been basic retail man…

They are removing expensive full time employees for whom they pay benefits for. The article said they had planned on doing this anyways, they just did it after a bad season.

As for not adequately staffing it, you simply can't. You cannot get a decent workforce via part time seasonal work. the way it worked before was part timers just took extra hours in peak periods, but Obamacare killed this by forcing any part timer over so many hours to be eligible for benefits, making it impossible to do.

Re: The unnecessary demise of Barnes and Noble

#380

Post by frogpelt »

phil21 wrote: post #6

I was out shopping 3-4 days before Christmas this year, and happened to be near a Barnes and Noble so figured I'd grab a copy of a magazine I've been wanting to read for a while. Grabbed the magazine, wandered the aisles a bit and picked up another book then went to check out. Basically I was their marketing department's dream - walk-in traffic coming to buy something cheap and specific who made an impulse retail buy…

Imagine if stores had a way for you to pay for your physical stuff on your phone without waiting in a physical line.

1. Use their app to scan the bar code

2. Pay with a card

3. A self-service printer prints a receipt/confirmation of purchase.

4. Show it to an employee on your way out the door.

Might be an inventory nightmare, but it could be done.

Post reply on HN