As you may have read in the news, DC comics has released 100 of their titles to Amazon exclusively, meaning that the Kindle Fire is the only device that will be able to support them in an electronic format. Don't have the Kindle Fire? You can still get those titles at a brick-and-mortar store, or at least you could until earlier this week when Barnes and Noble decided to pull all of those titles from the shelves.
As you see in the articles, many (including the employees) felt that this step was a little drastic, and would ultimately hurt the company rather than help it. Certainly customers who are unaware of the stakes are unhappy, and even those that are still have to deal with not being able to buy their favorite comics at the stores they like to support. The war for digital content is one that is hard to understand unless you are working in that environment, and even then I can understand the frustration on the store employee's level. When customers depend on you to have the thing that they are seeking, it is hard to have to explain to people that may or may not care that your company has made this decision, and you do not have any way to change it.
That being said, when I first heard about this, I was majorly impressed. Barnes and Noble has been saying for some time now that they will only continue to provide "showroom space" for those titles for which they also have electronic access. (This was in a PW article some months ago, which I cannot find now but I promise my word is good for it.) At the time I thought that this was a load of hot air, quite frankly, because who would risk that much to take a stance against that behemoth of Amazon? Again, I understand the objections to it, but you have to admit to the sheer amount of chutzpah that a move like that takes. I also have no love for Amazon, who does not even have the redeeming aspect of employing booksellers to soften the blow of how many stores they have helped put under. So I admit that I did not regret that DC might have had their noses tweaked a little for relying so heavily on Amazon.
I also think B&N has a point. Booksellers everywhere can understand the frustration of having someone come in, ask you to find a book, and then go buy it online. Watch this video from the Harvard Bookstore, which humorously but accurately depicts the frustration of watching your hard work benefit another company. For Indies, they rely on the goodwill of their customers to support their local bookstore to get people to buy actual paper copies, and people respond to that. B&N, who can't reap the benefits of being a "local", relies on being able to sell their products electronically as well to keep their customers loyal. Without that ability, it really doesn't profit them to keep a title in stock that people will just come in and look at, listen to the employee recommendations, and buy elsewhere.
Do they lose the sales from people not being able to buy the paper copy? Sure, but they've seen what happens when a company relies on just being cheap and there, rather than aggressively expanding into the electronic world. Right or wrong, they seem to be taking a stand against the idea that they exist solely as showroom space, and refuse to participate in a system in which they are not seeing any benefit for themselves.
Now it seems that Books-A-Million has joined the embargo. If I may make a Star Trek reference, it's as if one of the non-aligned worlds has joined the Maquis forces and lent them a semblance of legitimacy so they look less like a spoiled child throwing tantrums over things that they cannot change. It will be interesting to see if this move will sway customer sympathy in their favor. This "alliance" make the issue less about Barnes and Noble, and more about the book industry as a whole. While I'm sure B&N comic book revenue is nothing to sneeze at, adding BAM numbers to the equation makes things a little more serious if DC wants to continue this way.
It will also be interesting to see how the Indies react to this "call to arms". I would venture to say that since there is nothing that would really benefit them to help either Barnes and Noble or BAM, they will probably sit this one out. More than either of these chains, the Indie relies on having the physical product for the regulars and for the walk-ins. They therefore can't really afford to do anything drastic over electronic content, and in any case a lot of them don't offer their own e-reader anyway. However, it may benefit the book-selling industry as whole to remind publishers that they need their showroom as much as book stores need the product.
Surprisingly, I don't really feel strongly one way or the other about this battle. I think it is intensely interesting, and I have always had something of a soft spot for lost causes, but the objections against this move are very valid. Beyond the question of whether or not they are right to be doing what they are doing, there is also the chance that this won't pan out, and they will have alienated their customer base for nothing.
What about you? Do you feel that bookstores have the right to refuse to carry product that they do not have access to electronically? Or do you feel that bookstores have a responsibility to the community that they are in to have the good titles in stock, and that they are only hurting themselves in the long run? I'm curious to hear what people at other bookstores or even those not involved in the industry think. While the book industry has always been rather insular, I think the most important thing going forward is to hear what the concerns and responses are of the community you serve.
After all, isn't that what rebel causes are for?
While I agree that it's important to take a stand over something you agree strongly about, such as Barnes and Noble did, I feel that it was an incredibly stupid move on their part. As someone who used to work in the book industry, I cannot stress enough how important it is to have a physical copy in the store to sell to someone. Yes, there are a fair number of people that use bookstores for "research" for their e-reader, but there is still a large number that prefer the physical copy. If you don't have that copy, you lose the sale. So B&N has shot themselves in the foot in a way.
ReplyDeleteLet's say there is a loyal Barnes and Noble customer that has a Nook. Let's also say this customer enjoys comic books and (for some strange reason) has not heard of Watchmen (or any of the other titles really) before. Someone recommends it to them and they eagerly pull out their Nook to find it. They notice that it's not available and, as a loyal B&N customer, decide that they will drive to their favorite book store to buy it. But it's not on the shelves either and, if they want a copy, they have to order it sent to their home. The customer is understandably upset as B&N has a policy of offering as many books as possible for purchase and rather than wait for the book to arrive, decides to call a friend and borrow it from them. Everybody loses in this case. The store loses money, the customer loses faith in their bookstore, and DC loses money as well.
This situation can apply to any book that B&N has decided to pull from the shelves in what I view as a temper tantrum over content licensing. Regardless of how they try to "combat" the e-reader researchers, people are going to do it in stores anyway. I feel they will lose a lot more revenue and it will ultimately lead to their demise as well. I would hate to see another big bookstore go out of business after they shut down all the independent stores. Too many towns have been left without a bookstore as a result of Borders' closure. I would hate to see this affect even more cities. Yes, I think this may drive up the number of independent bookstores, but there will be an equal number of people that decide NOT to open a store because the bigger stores failed. Brick and mortar stores are an important part of maintaining literacy in this country. Many people say bigger stores are evil for driving out independents, but they have also done a lot to keep people reading.
However, you're right, it takes a LOT of balls on B&N to take this strong of stance. It still seems like a little kid throwing a hissy fit though to me.