bookseller analyst

Borders Alternate Model Makes Sense

This story by journalist (?) Todd Sullivan illustrates the growing problem with internet news and journalism in general. Get a press release or wire story and don't bother to research the project--just spew forth based on your years of experience.

Buying books on a non-returnable basis has been offered for years as an option by some publishers. As a system it has been tried off and on since the 1970s--remember "Remainder in Place?"

Borders said it wanted to try print-on-demand in their stores. That would be truly revolutionary--one at a time printing. But, of course, they overwhelmed any strategies thay had to go coupon for coupon with B&N.

The problem with non-returnable books is that it mostly affects the very top projected sellers. Say Borders buys 100 copies per store of the latest mega seller by one of the tree-burning authors--and the books bombs--Borders gets credit and the publisher sell it to a remainder house. Borders uses that money to pay its bill.

Publishers have been notoriously slow to reprint books because of returns, so this new plan is going to make buying a lot more difficult and could ultimately raise the price of remainders.

It will also have a profound affect on midlist books where publishers and booksellers take a chance and depend on word of mouth for publicity.

Borders has reduced their stock so much they resemble the defunct Crown Books.

It would be really nice for Mr. Sullivan to actually do some homework so he could honestly analyze a situation. People wonder how they get suckered by bad investments and all you have to look at what passes for financial journalism now. How many writers even know now what credit default swaps are? Here we have a story written by someone owning Borders stock that has absolutely no value.

It is not an honest analysis, but a reaction to an unchecked press release. As the first commnter suggests, this si a So What story.