[K-9]

Borders books going under. Link My big question is how have they gone under before Barnes & Noble, which IMO is about 3 tiers beneath Borders?

It's no surprise to me as I found that Borders:

Consistently sold books in the $30-100 range too high. It's funny because their website would redirect you to Amazon, as they were partnered with them for online sales, and any book in the store that was $80 would be about $50 on Amazon. Why on Earth would anyone pay the in store prices and why would they team with an online source that undercut them on almost every book?

Their DVD selection was consistently overpriced. The only time I bought DVDs was when they had sales. They did have a good selection of them, a few years back before they stopped carrying them.

Their music/CD section was just about the worst I've ever seen. I've bought more CD's at Target and dollar stores. Whoever was in charge of stocking music for the company did a pitiful job. Their prices were astronomical, too.

As for their books, they had a decent stock about 6 years ago, but every year they seemed to stock less and less. I probably last bought a book I wanted inside their store 2 years ago. I would buy 4-8 a year prior to that, but quickly found that everything I was looking for was no longer stocked on the shelves.

Now, Barnes & Noble pretty much has all the same issues as Borders, but IMO, even to a greater extent. Their DVD prices are probably the highest I've ever seen inside a retail store. Their CD selection is even more pitiful than Borders ever was. They do seem to stock a lot more book titles than the recent stock at Borders, although not more than the Borders of 4 years ago.

I can't see how B&N will stay open much longer if Borders is not. There are probably 6 Borders locations within 30 miles of me, and probably only 2 Barnes and Nobles.

[raz-0]

B&N might not have been much different on paper, but they were less stupid.

They both stunk at selling most things non-book. Borders dedicated about 50% of their floor space to it. B&n much less so. B&n also got onto the cafe business while an overpriced cup of coffee was something people wanted.

B&n also created an online sales channel while borders pretended the Internet was a passing fad. Borders finally realized it wasn't, and invited the fox to camp out inside the henhouse.

B&n also didn't over expand as badly at the wrong time. They did so when the economy was better and a misstep like that was less fatal.

[rhodopsin]

And so the Independents were able to recover and thrive as never before!

[adr1an]

The Australian Operations (run via Pvt. Equity group REDgroup) back in February went into Administration. The interesting thing though - it was run entirely by REDgroup (via PEP)- and the collapse of the Australian operation are 'unrelated' to the US collapse... Yet the Australian arm failed almost in unison with the US arm...

Borders, Angus & Robertson's local owner REDgroup fails

"Borders opened its first store in Australia in October 1998 at the Jam Factory in Melbourne's South Yarra. A year later Borders opened its first New Zealand store in Queen Street, Auckland. Over the next eight years Borders opened new stores in Australia, New Zealand and Singapore. Angus & Robertson is Australia's largest book retailer and has 103 directly owned stores and 61 franchised stores located in every state and territory.


Retailers have come under sustained earnings pressure over the last year due to higher interest rates, a return to thrift by consumers and a general increase in the cost of living.
Businesses such as Borders have been particularly hard hit by the rise in popularity of e-commerce sites that sell a vast range of books online at heavily discounted prices to traditional bricks-and-mortar shops. The strengthening Australian dollar has also encouraged shopping on overseas websites."

[RioRico]

Borders was like BestBuy: Go to the store to handle the merchandise, go online to buy it much cheaper. Some of their bargain-table books were OK. Most everything else, wasn't. Hay, now they're liquidating everything at 40% off!! That's still 20% above street price. My only regret is that I won't have a soft chair to read mags whilst my other is shopping next door.

[magkelly]

Paper books are slowly going extinct thanks to digital pads and book readers. Why buy paper books to clutter up your house when you can have a whole library of thousands of digital ones can that fit on a usb drive? I reserve my paper book buying now strictly for books that truly deserve it, which for me usually means the odd book of poetry from the 1800's to 1900's usually, something special with a gilt decorated cover or lovely illustrated plates. I still like my little shelf of really, really old books but buying new paperbacks and such given the volume of books I read every year tends not to be too eco-friendly.

Borders finally died because digital books finally caught on and people stopped shopping for real books and started buying books they could have on a Kindle or similar device. They refused to go there until it was much too late and they paid the price for their short sightedness. Barnes on the other hand got their reader and e-book business done in time to make a dent in the digital market and to give the Kindle a halfway decent rival.

I'll miss Borders actually, but honestly I think the day of the big chain bookstores and paper books is nearly done. I think that in a decade or two paper books will be just a vague memory for most people under 50. There are people out there who stubbornly cling to the format but even the most die hard non-tech book reading people are buying book readers and pads and even the libraries and schools are starting to go more and more digital.

Digital text books, digital books from the library? People routinely reading on a Kindle while waiting in line, while commuting? Children reading books on a pad device while Mom shops? I'm seeing all of that happening more and more now. That's not a really good sign for the paper book publishing industry in general. Those e-book reading devices that used to be so expensive as to be a luxury are now becoming very common place and a lot less expensive.

I'm thinking it won't be long before most kids have their own pad for elementary, junior high and high school, the way most college kids now have their own laptop. Reading on a screen has become so much the norm for most of our kids that they think nothing of doing it. Why would they carry a whole pile of books around if they don't need to anymore?

I was an early adopter of digital books. In college I used to scan my text books then re-sell them back before the end of the first month so I wouldn't have to carry several heavy books to class. I started digitizing my books and donating them well before there was even such a thing as e-books. Now I have dolls and other collectibles on my shelves, no paper books, except for the ones on my 19th century poetry shelf and a very few useful old photography books just below that. I miss paper books now and again, sure, but mostly I'm glad I went digital.

[reeftool]

The thing I liked most about Borders was what most likely killed them. They always had what I wanted on the shelf whether it was a book, music CD, or DVD movie. Want to upgrade your 60's and 70's LP records to CD? Borders probably had it. Their store in Saratoga always was busy but a large percentage of that inventory sat there collecting dust. The Barnes and Noble is a third the size and you usually have to order a book you want, especially a photography book.

[K-9]

Paper books are slowly going extinct thanks to digital pads and book readers. Why buy paper books to clutter up your house when you can have a whole library of thousands of digital ones can that fit on a usb drive? I reserve my paper book buying now strictly for books that truly deserve it, which for me usually means the odd book of poetry from the 1800's to 1900's usually, something special with a gilt decorated cover or lovely illustrated plates. I still like my little shelf of really, really old books but buying new paperbacks and such given the volume of books I read every year tends not to be too eco-friendly.

Borders finally died because digital books finally caught on and people stopped shopping for real books and started buying books they could have on a Kindle or similar device. They refused to go there until it was much too late and they paid the price for their short sightedness. Barnes on the other hand got their reader and e-book business done in time to make a dent in the digital market and to give the Kindle a halfway decent rival.

I'll miss Borders actually, but honestly I think the day of the big chain bookstores and paper books is nearly done. I think that in a decade or two paper books will be just a vague memory for most people under 50. There are people out there who stubbornly cling to the format but even the most die hard non-tech book reading people are buying book readers and pads and even the libraries and schools are starting to go more and more digital.

Digital text books, digital books from the library? People routinely reading on a Kindle while waiting in line, while commuting? Children reading books on a pad device while Mom shops? I'm seeing all of that happening more and more now. That's not a really good sign for the paper book publishing industry in general. Those e-book reading devices that used to be so expensive as to be a luxury are now becoming very common place and a lot less expensive.

I'm thinking it won't be long before most kids have their own pad for elementary, junior high and high school, the way most college kids now have their own laptop. Reading on a screen has become so much the norm for most of our kids that they think nothing of doing it. Why would they carry a whole pile of books around if they don't need to anymore?

I was an early adopter of digital books. In college I used to scan my text books then re-sell them back before the end of the first month so I wouldn't have to carry several heavy books to class. I started digitizing my books and donating them well before there was even such a thing as e-books. Now I have dolls and other collectibles on my shelves, no paper books, except for the ones on my 19th century poetry shelf and a very few useful old photography books just below that. I miss paper books now and again, sure, but mostly I'm glad I went digital.

I don't believe this is the case at all. Many more people still use tangible books over digital versions. These are very surprising comments, especially from a photographer. I would rather have printed photos anyday than just look at digital ones. 90% of the books I own are photography related and I wouldn't dare trade any of them for digital files, just to save space.

As I mentioned, Borders shot themselves in the foot by continually offering a limited selection of books, CD's, and DVD's at too high prices. Then, their stock dwindled year by year, so it naturally made more and more people find out about lower prices online.

I fully disagree with your digital files taking over theory that buried them. Out of 200 people I know, I would say 199 of them still use printed books/magazines, over kindle, ipads, etc. They are in no way taking over yet, and in no way what caused Borders' demise. Borders and B&N were both sinking fast, long before an Ipad or the Kindle was ever announced.

[magkelly]

You need to read the economic pages if you don't believe that digital books are taking over. I think it was a few weeks ago that it finally happened but Amazon actually sold more digital books than paper ones. My local librarian who is 62 and pretty old school was dead set against them at first, but even she's reading with a Kindle these days. So are my parents, my 2 best friends, and just about everyone else I know. I'm actually the odd ball out actually still reading most of my e-books on a computer screen, but I like my text pretty big. I never thought I'd see any one of these people reading on a computer of any kind, ever, but they are.

As for the need for making photographic prints I'm not a huge fan of those either. I do print a good photo for the wall once in a while, if I feel I can live with it for a year or more, but for the most part I actually prefer digital frames and displaying a library of my favorite photos rather than displaying the same photos all the time.

My favorite "frames" are actually my computer desktops and the 2 table digital frames one of my nieces got me a few years back, not the old fashioned ones still on the wall. I tend to save the wall space for my movie posters collection and for hanging old hats, plants and other interesting things I collect actually. I still have a few antique photos on the wall, but the more modern stuff is rotating in the digital frames, on the computers etc.

I still use film, for fun, but I usually will digitize my film work. I don't like the darkroom, the chemicals mess with me, and I don't actually feel the need for making prints, most of the time. One day when I can afford them I want to get some really big poster sized digital frames. I love the idea of having them on the wall over the couch etc. The idea that I can change pics every day or just to change the decor as I like actually appeals a lot. I don't feel I need to make tons of prints. What I do need and would really enjoy having are some more digital frames, preferably ones larger than 12" or so.

Modern technology isn't the enemy. I can display a photo or read books just as easily on a screen as I can on paper and it saves trees to do so. No, aesthetically it's not quite the same, but that's okay. I've adapted. I read literally 50 plus books a week. 3/4 of them are library books now or digital ones, but still I seldom used to get rid of any paper books I physically acquired even when I was done with them. Add it up over a few decades. That's a lot of books.

I had a book collection in the 5 figures when I finally decided that I had to go digital. One day I just realized that I wouldn't have room for my furniture soon if I didn't go digital. Except in the bathroom my walls pretty much ALL had bookcases on them, not my posters, that's how many books I had. I'm talking a small lending library worth of books and I wasn't even 30 at the time. My parents they had book cases in 3/4 their house too. Mostly it was my Mom. Like me she could never throw away a book unless it was completely lousy. Now, all those books are gone. That huge library of titles is now on a dozen DVD's and they have room to display some local artwork that used to sit in boxes because they no longer had room to put it up on the walls.

It's far more convenient to have a library on a few DVD's. I do miss the new book smell sometimes, but you know not enough to go backwards. Traveling for a week or so in March I took my laptop and a USB drive with about 50 books on it. It simplified my trip considerably. My only real regret was that I was still using a laptop for reading and email when a pad would have been far lighter and far more convenient. I do mean to get me a small pad computer one day soon. I'm using an old pocket PC to read books on the go for the moment, but that's just not powerful or quite big enough screen-wise for me and I can't go online with it to check email either. But I'm never traveling with a laptop again if I can help it. It's just too heavy and too awkward for me to carry one now and a laptop takes up too much space in my one bag besides. It's space I'd really rather reserve for camera gear, not books, not a laptop.

It was weird at first learning to read digital. But you do get used to it and I feel that the advantages far outweigh any sense of nostalgia I might still feel about using paper books. In the end I switched to digital to save space, save my lungs (Book dust and and book mites are heck on allergies and asthma.) and save trees. As much as I read I just cannot justify not using e-books. Given my reading habits I'd probably kill a decent grove of trees before I croaked myself and there's just no excuse for that given there is a more reasonable alternative now.

[K-9]

One week or month of Amazon digital files outselling paper books in no way reflects that everyone is doing what you're doing and replacing their books. I doubt we see digital books outnumber printed books in the majority of people's houses for several, several years. Don't forget how many millions of out of print books that will never appear digitized. Millions of back issue magazines that will never appear online. Magazines, books, and printed material will never disappear in our lifetimes.

I also fully believe you are in the minority of photographers who prefer digital images on a digital frame over prints.

Anyway, I went into a Borders today and this is what was the sale currently is:

40% off magazines
20% off DVDs
10% off most other stuff

Not exactly a spectacular deal yet, but I did buy two photo mags.

[RioRico]

The delusion that PRINT IS DEAD, LONG LIVE KINDLE isn't even accurate in USA and 'developed' world, let alone the rest of Terra. But I'm biased -- I live surrounded by publications, the vast majority of which will never ever be digitized, and many of which won't be viewable on any reader -- coffee-table books, large atlases, folio-size volumes, etc. Reading the TIME-LIFE LIBRARY OF PHOTOGRAPHY volumes on a Kindle is preposterous. Even newsprint will never die, else what will people use to line birdcages and swat flies?

Kindle has not saved any forests. Too bad.

[ChrisPlatt]

Marshall McLuhan, who would have turned 100 this week, foresaw all of this nearly fifty years ago.
Some avid readers I know have taken to electronic readers; others never will.
I suspect the choice will be far less emotionally charged for their children.

Chris

[magkelly]

Marshall McLuhan, who would have turned 100 this week, foresaw all of this nearly fifty years ago. Some avid readers I know have taken to electronic readers; others never will. I suspect the choice will be far less emotionally charged for their children. Chris

Exactly my point. While their parents may or may not be adopting the kids are another story and they are the future customers of the publishing industry, not us. While some of us are hemming and hawing and still protesting they're already reading digital books as a routine thing, embracing new technology as an everyday matter.

This is exactly what people said about digital cameras when they first started going main stream you know. Now look at the industry. Digital rules and those still using film are in the minority. No, film isn't dying completely out, but camera manufacturers aren't exactly running to produce film SLR's anymore either. Ditto physical CD's. They once said people would never download new CD's instead of buying them too. Wrong, all they needed was good media players and a few good file formats and physical CD's became largely optional.

There will always be some paper books, but digital books and digital devices are taking over the industry and anyone who ignores that, like Borders, does that at their peril.

[K-9]

Nobody's ignoring the fact that digital books are becoming popular, but your comparison of film vs digital photography is way off the mark. Digital books are not a planned replacement technology for printed materials as digital images and SLRS were to film negatives and SLRS. Ebooks are simply an alternative/enhanced viewing method. Have audio books replaced printed books? Not even close. Will 3D TV's ever become the norm? Nowhere near anytime soon. Again, an alternative viewing method, not a planned replacement.

I don't know what kids you know that are reading digital books, but every elementary school near me strictly use printed books. AFAIK, I have never heard of any switching over to ebooks. We're nowhere even close to that yet.

Physical CDs are still being produced at an overwhelming rate as opposed to print film. Nowhere near an accurate comparison there. Itunes was out 10 years ago, and every single retail store in the country continues to stock and sell CD's.

Digital books are NOT taking over the printed material industry. Not now, or anytime soon. Again, Borders problems were with pricing and the titles they stocked, nothing to do with the fact that all their customers went to using Kindles. You're way, way off in saying that.

[lithos]

So, what do people turn to when their e-reader's battery runs out?