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

Barnes and Noble Sets Itself Free

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 83 posts

Re: Barnes and Noble Sets Itself Free

#71

Post by camgunz »

bluGill wrote: post #41
camgunz wrote: post #30

It's not clear to me what the benefit of chains is (before anyone says consistency that's definitely not it) to consumers and markets. I guess the idea was supposed to be something like leveraging economies of scale, but most chains are just fronts for broader supply chains with multiple other clients--it's pretty rare that there's a specific like, Applebee's supply chain. But isn't it clear by now that it's all arou…

Chains have the money to invest in a large store. 90% of the books in any store are not of interest to any particular reader. However each reader wants a different set. Tiny bookstores often only have 5 books that might interest someone, and when you finish those you have nothing to buy there until they change inventory. A large store will have enough inventory that you can come back for more.

Eh I think books are a weird example here because really we should just have libraries (the mechanism here is if there isn't a book you want you have them order it, which is exactly what libraries do, ergo why bookstores).

But I can't really think of anything else that's good for this example. It's not like a huge McDonald's is a good idea. Hardware stores were all independent shops bought up by like Ace and True Value (or closed by Wal-Mart, etc.) so like, nothing really changed (a small hardware store is still a small Ace hardware store). Basically anything else (furniture, carpet) has some floor display models and a catalog you can browse. Which is also what B&N does when they don't have the book you want. Maybe like a Menards or Lowe's? But again they're just like a weird superstore that's part appliance store, part hardware store, part greenhouse and part lumber yard. Feels like we'd actually get broader inventory at individual stores for those things.

Re: Barnes and Noble Sets Itself Free

#72

Post by haliskerbas »

bko wrote: post #69
gosub100 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Meaning that they treat their employees fairly The existence of a policy doesn't make it fair, in fact the reason I abhor 1-size-fits-all policies is because of places like Amazon warehouses where you're fired for being late X times ("sorry, it's policy , my hands are tied :( ). Corporate policies are there to protect the company from lawsuits, and as a consequence they erode the agency of individuals which is lite…

I don't know, I like policies. What's the alternative? Different rules for different people? How does that square with anti discrimination. Because I am willing to bet the ones that get disproportionate punishment will be a historically marginalized group. Same rules for everyone is a good thing. And it adds transparency and order. Treating someone like a human doesn't mean firing someone for being late while not fir…

This requires the humans applying the policy to apply them fairly. For example, I've seen "friends of the boss" be hired into tech roles after failing the interview. The policy of needing to pass an interview panel is only for those not a friend of someone higher up. Technically the policy is fair, in practice it is not.

That is before we get into whether or not those policies treat people well.

But I don't have a good alternative, other than more and better policies I suppose...

Re: Barnes and Noble Sets Itself Free

#73

Post by jjgreen »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #44
jjgreen wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sadly, the stock of specialised books is much reduced. The mathematics section used to have its own room , ruled with a rod of iron by a fearsome Russian (?) lady. Now reduced to a couple of shelves. Coffee you can get anywhere ...

I'm wondering how Foyles competes now. It used to be a near-mythical warren of floor to ceiling piles of obscure technical and academic books. At some point in the mid 00s it moved to a cleaner slightly newer building and became tidier and more antiseptic. The old building has been replaced by a bizarre wrinkly pink-ish box. I haven't been for years. I'm curious if it's gone more mainstream.

Definitely more mainstream, corporate, antiseptic. Still one of the best (if not the best) big bookshops in London, still worth a visit (but do have a schlepp down to Goldsboro and Any Amount further down the road).

Re: Barnes and Noble Sets Itself Free

#74

Post by alephnerd »

gosub100 wrote: post #35
keiferski wrote: post #11

Since he embarked on the Barnes & Noble redesign in 2020, Mr. Daunt has demonstrated that consistency doesn’t rank very high on his priority list. New York City has nine Barnes & Noble stores featuring four different logos above the front doors. A lot of brands benefit from uniformity, knowing that your coffee or burger at Starbucks/McDonalds/wherever is functionally the same in Tokyo or Toronto. I think book stores…

So they're indistinguishable from a local business other than having corporate amounts of capital to weather storms, policies to control workers and inventory (what books to stock), and they send their profits out of the community. Neat

Lots of "local businesses" are like that globally now.

For example, go to a pub in the UK - it's almost always owned by Greene King which itself is owned by a Hong Kong holding company called CK Asset Holdings [0] that has also provided VC to startups like Siri.

Or in North America, AB InBev and Molson Coors now have significant or majority ownership in most breweries, juice, and sparkling water companies, and according to a buddy of mine working at one of those are looking into taking minority ownership positions in local coffee shops and bars.

If Publishers had capital, they probably would have considered doing something similar with community bookstores. Heck, Barnes and Nobles operates the Harvard Coop and the MIT Coop (the student bookstores for Harvard and MIT)

P.S. Before the inevitable MBA bashing starts up, Private Equity and IB doesn't really hire from MBA programs (Wharton, Booth, GSB, and CBS are the only exceptions) - they prefer hiring directly out of undergrad at a couple target schools (Ivies, MIT, Claremont Colleges, UChicago, Northwestern, Stanford, Duke, USC, SMU, UC Berkeley Haas+EECS, UCLA, NYU Stern, UMich Ross, UT McCombs, GTown McDonough) and train internally. MBAs tend to end up in operational roles such as Consulting, Tech, or (if you were a flamed out ex-IB/PE/VC or attended undergrad abroad) VC-IB-PE.

[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CK_Asset_Holdings

Re: Barnes and Noble Sets Itself Free

#75

Post by ranger207 »

camgunz wrote: post #30

It's not clear to me what the benefit of chains is (before anyone says consistency that's definitely not it) to consumers and markets. I guess the idea was supposed to be something like leveraging economies of scale, but most chains are just fronts for broader supply chains with multiple other clients--it's pretty rare that there's a specific like, Applebee's supply chain. But isn't it clear by now that it's all arou…

The answers include

* Consistency: you know every store in a chain is going to be within a standard deviation or so of every other

* Economies of scale

* Developing specific supply chains for their business. Sure there's not a specific Applebee's supply chain company, but there are specific product managers at supply chain companies for Applebee's products, and when you take the set of product managers, warehouse space, supply contracts, etc across the whole supply chain industry it results in a specific supply chain for a specific company in a way you can't get if you're a small business

Re: Barnes and Noble Sets Itself Free

#76

Post by keiferski »

camgunz wrote: post #70
keiferski wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consistency is definitely the benefit of chains, especially for travelers. That was one of the original reasons chains like Howard Johnson’s did so well. Today, when abroad, it is still helpful to know that a chain will have predictable food, even if you didn’t fly halfway around the world to eat at McDonalds. Sometimes comfort and convenience beats out novelty.

I mean, fast food is my chief inconsistency case. Have you had fries at more than 1 franchise? They're always different.

Consistency matters between restaurants, not between franchises. McDonalds fries may vary slightly from one location to the next, but they are more similar to each other than to other restaurants' fries.

Re: Barnes and Noble Sets Itself Free

#77

Post by aworks »

shiroiuma wrote: post #28
randcraw wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish they sold BOOKS. My local B&N (15 miles north of Philly) has converted 25% of shelf space to toys. The tradeoff: just 2 shelves of computer-related books, now titled "Technology", most of which are about using Windows or Office. Does this trend reflect the dumbing down of B&N or its customers?

It probably reflects the reality of trying to sell computer books in 2023, and what kind of people are willing to buy those books in a mainstream bookstore. Computer books lose relevancy quickly as their information becomes out-of-date, and people who buy them are more likely to look online for the lowest price.

I still miss the Computer Literacy stores in Silicon Valley but that era is long gone.

Re: Barnes and Noble Sets Itself Free

#78

Post by simpaticoder »

dageshi wrote: post #59
simpaticoder wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why on earth would a book store carry any relevant computer technical books nowadays? Because books can explain concepts better than any other medium. Books aren't great for reference/howto because that info goes out of date quickly. E.g. I'm not going to buy a book about browser APIs, I'll use MDN. But I will buy a book about SPA design or HCI. I'll certainly buy a book about a topic like performance analysis or co…

I didn't say technical books were irrelevant, I asked why a book store would carry them. The people most interested in computer related technical books are those who most heavily use the internet and therefore are most likely to be the ones who buy via amazon or directly from the author. That's before we consider that such technical books are going to be a niche within a niche, in other words, not something to put in…

>I didn't say technical books were irrelevant, I asked why a book store would carry them.

Oh, sorry. It's because book stores want to carry books that are relevant. There is a catch-22 in what you say, because you're right that we've gotten used to buying books online (alibris, not amazon please) which makes bookstores carry them less, which makes us less likely to buy them in bookstores... The spiral downward is real; the opposite, a spiral upward, can also be real with a little effort. Bookstores are filled with books about niche interests, why not ours?

Re: Barnes and Noble Sets Itself Free

#79

Post by BenFeldman1930 »

NoboruWataya wrote: post #21
keiferski wrote: post #11

Since he embarked on the Barnes & Noble redesign in 2020, Mr. Daunt has demonstrated that consistency doesn’t rank very high on his priority list. New York City has nine Barnes & Noble stores featuring four different logos above the front doors. A lot of brands benefit from uniformity, knowing that your coffee or burger at Starbucks/McDonalds/wherever is functionally the same in Tokyo or Toronto. I think book stores…

If nothing else, uniformity doesn't add as much value to a brand that isn't selling its own product. Nobody really worries that the copy of a book they buy in one shop will be different to a copy bought in another. There are likely some benefits to consistency, like a familiar store layout or knowing that a shop will stock a good range of books, but these are kind of ancillary to the product (and my experience is tha…

Same with Hatchards (close to Waterstones' Picadilly shoppe).

Re: Barnes and Noble Sets Itself Free

#80

Post by SpaceLawnmower »

mwexler wrote: post #62

This is a great pr/marketing piece. The reality is not so rosy. Still a fan, but they make harder and harder. The new stores and redesigns may be portrayed as "inviting browsing"... But they are rather soulless racks of shelves, with little of the unique touches that differentiated Barnes. The new designs are uncomfortable, not quite sterile but just... Meh. In effect, in the effort to put the books up front, locatio…

Yeah Barnes and Noble for me was a third place where I could sit down, read a book, study, read some manga, eat a cookie, spend time. The new design downgrades most of those uses and turns it in to a better place to buy books.
Post reply on HN