Borders is dead!

[Etcetera]

Well, in the UK at least.

Borders went into administration yesterday morning and is now selling its stock at varied discounts. I spent far too much, but at least I'll have a lot to read.

I'm kind of annoyed about it, because at least where I live the only other non-charity bookshop is a small Waterstones, and I liked the atmosphere in the place (which is more than I can say for most chains). Also, the books. But its all gone now...

[Viera Champion]

My aunt works at a borders here in Delaware. So as far as I know borders is still thriving in the US.

[Starscream]

Our local one is still open, and doesn't look like it's going anywhere at the moment.

[Dienekes]

From what I've heard both Barnes and Noble and Borders stock are plummeting.

Not sure if it's true though.

[Etcetera]

Hence the in the UK bit. Borders UK has gone into administration, but in the US it is still trading.

[Cristo Meyers]

From what I've heard both Barnes and Noble and Borders stock are plummeting.

Not sure if it's true though.

Borders has been a borderline money pit for some time now, and they've been going through various cutbacks over the past few years. Waldenbooks (a Borders sister chain) actually just got axed completely last month or so.

[PhoeKun]

Hence the in the UK bit. Borders UK has gone into administration, but in the US it is still trading.

It may not be too far behind here, either. A quick glance at the stock market shows Borders is at this point barely keeping its stock high enough to qualify for the NYSE (it's currently trading at 1.51, and needs to stay above 1. The trend for the day, month, and year are all a steady dive).

Barnes & Noble, if you were curious, is doing just fine. In fact, stock is currently spiking, as its climbed in value from around 16 to 24ish since September.

[Dienekes]

Barnes & Noble, if you were curious, is doing just fine. In fact, stock is currently spiking, as its climbed in value from around 16 to 24ish since September.

Whoo, thank you for this. Now what's happening to Border's is terrible, but there are like 3 B&Ns around me.

[Mauve Shirt]

Seems healthy over here. :smalleek: This is kind of worrisome. There are 2 Borders near me in MD, and a B&N, but there's only a Borders in Fredericksburg.

[Gaelbert]

Borders in the US has been in trouble for at least a year. It was widely predicted to be out of business by now, but it's still just barely hanging on.

[PhoeKun]

I would venture to guess that if Borders could find somebody willing to buy them out, they'd be gone already. But that's an unnecessarily large risk with next to no gain for a company like B&N, and anathema to the business plan of Amazon (which is largely responsible for Borders' issues in the first place).

In related news, a couple articles I read in relation to the stock research I just did predicted the end of the printed medium in as few as 20 years, expecting e-readers like the Kindle to take over. And in the meantime, online sales are predicted to continue to increase in importance, making physical stores more obsolete with every passing second.

This news isn't exactly sitting well with me.

[Gamerlord]

Eh, I always used B&N and amazon. No loss to me.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Dammit, I love Borders. Guess I should actually buy books more, but sadly they're a luxury to me. I hope it manages to stay afloat in the US.

[factotum]

In related news, a couple articles I read in relation to the stock research I just did predicted the end of the printed medium in as few as 20 years, expecting e-readers like the Kindle to take over.

Whoever predicted that has never read a book, I guess. There's something so much easier about flipping over a page on a physical book than pressing buttons...

[Cristo Meyers]

I would venture to guess that if Borders could find somebody willing to buy them out, they'd be gone already. But that's an unnecessarily large risk with next to no gain for a company like B&N, and anathema to the business plan of Amazon (which is largely responsible for Borders' issues in the first place).


What'll probably happen is a liquidation company will get ahold of them and that'll be the end of it. It's the same thing that happened to Tower Records.

[Solaris]

Whoever predicted that has never read a book, I guess. There's something so much easier about flipping over a page on a physical book than pressing buttons...

That's because you have a soul. I've run into e-books and found I dislike 'em. I don't like peering at a computer screen when I'm trying to read a story, and I never have the same memory-bond with the screen that I do with an actual book (so internet-based research doesn't work nearly so well as paper-based research).

Then again, I'm the kinda guy who insists on paying for everything in cash, and would much rather go to a store and ask for them to order something from one of their suppliers than go online and order it myself. I refuse to go to an automated cashier-thingie, too. I dislike encouraging companies to remove people/physical things in exchange for machines/data. I know I'm a dying breed, and I have little doubt that in a generation or two your descendants will wonder at how we ever struggled by with paper books.

[icastflare!]

I love borders! Too bad because thatswhere I go for books and parts of music I cant find at other stores. I feel for ya man.

[Eldan]

I can't buy books on amazon. I have to smell them before buying them. It just doesn't work otherwise. :smallfrown:

[Texas_Ben]

I have little doubt that in a generation or two your descendants will wonder at how we ever struggled by with paper books.

Nope. While e-readers and the like are useful for light recreational reading, the permanency offered by physical media means that paper books will never be fully obsolete. When you write something down, it is down, and short of burning the paper it's written on you can always recover the information stored there.

Anyways, I think it's fair to say that the people who do the most reading buy the most books... and something I've noticed amongst people who buy a lot of books is the strong sentiment that books are vastly superior to e-readers. I don't even know anyone who owns a kindle or other e-reader. I know plenty of people who buy and read books.

Until they are as permanent, durable, and reliable as books, books have nothing to fear from devices trying to replace them.

[Eldan]

I'd use an E-reader for documents, reading papers and articles, magazines, perhaps. But books? Never. Doesn't work. The smell of glue and old paper, the feeling of a new page, the first time you crack open a book... sorry. E-readers fail.

[Mauve Shirt]

My sister's boyfriend has a kindle, it's pretty neat. It holds a ton of books, so it saves space, and I thinkin e-books are cheaper. I'd never get one though, I like actually holding a book, and I don't need yet ANOTHER screen to look at.

[wadledo]

While I do not approve of most large chain bookstores because they destroy most smaller, indie bookstores, I had liked borders more than I disliked Barn's and Nobles.
I also don't see the printed media phasing out until they can produce a cheap (no matter what you or amazon say, I've yet to find a cheap kindle) alternative that can be bought as off-the-rack as a dimestore paperback can.

[Solaris]

Nope. While e-readers and the like are useful for light recreational reading, the permanency offered by physical media means that paper books will never be fully obsolete. When you write something down, it is down, and short of burning the paper it's written on you can always recover the information stored there.

Anyways, I think it's fair to say that the people who do the most reading buy the most books... and something I've noticed amongst people who buy a lot of books is the strong sentiment that books are vastly superior to e-readers. I don't even know anyone who owns a kindle or other e-reader. I know plenty of people who buy and read books.

Until they are as permanent, durable, and reliable as books, books have nothing to fear from devices trying to replace them.

Right, like e-mail and electronic documentation will never replace paper.
Oh, wait.

[arguskos]

Right, like e-mail and electronic documentation will never replace paper.
Oh, wait.
And yet, most of business is still done on paper, people still MAIL letters, and we still use paper to take notes.

No, I think there's room yet for both to coexist happily. And I like that. :smallamused:

[Zeta Kai]

Dammit, I love Borders... I hope it manages to stay afloat in the US.

I hope so, too. My favorite town is Ann Arbor, Michigan, which is the hometown of Borders. If they go under, AA will be a less wondrous place. :smallfrown:

[Texas_Ben]

Right, like e-mail and electronic documentation will never replace paper.
Oh, wait.

As another poster has already pointed out, e-mail and electronic documents have not, and will not replace paper.

e-mail has largely displaced regular mail for quick, informal communication because it offers huge advantages in the amount of time and trouble it takes to send a correspondence. For truly important things, however, paper mail is still the preferred method.
And as far as documentation... well, the advantages offered by digitizing records and the like is colossal. Why waste massive amounts of space and risk losing things, when everything you need is available at the push of a button?

E-readers, at least at present, offer few advantages over real books, and many disadvantages. The only real advantage I can think of is portability, in that you can carry a sizable library with you at all times. However, you are then hindered by battery life, and the fact that a spiffy electronic gizmo is infinitely more likely to get snatched if you leave it unattended, and it being an electronic gizmo means it does not like taking as much abuse as a book can. Also is the little point in which if you buy a book, you own it and it is yours... you can highlight, make notes in margins, and generally deface it as you see fit (personally I think doing that is tantamount to sacrilege, but we're not talking about me). I mean I know that you can do some of those things on e-readers, but it is my understanding that it is clunky and bothersome to do so. And on the subject of actually owning what you buy... Remember that whole 1984 debacle? I am not about to spend money on something that a company can take back at any time for any reason.

And one further thing... You mentioned e-mail and documentation. Think about that for a second; both of those things (in my mind, anyway) bring to mind "official business" and bureaucracy. Very few people care very much about how these things are done, but only care about results.
I have yet to meet a person who reads a lot who does not have a very strong sentimental attachment to books. And since it stands to reason that most books are bought by, you know, people who love them, I find it hard to imagine e-readers replacing books in any meaningful capacity.

[Solaris]

How many letters have you written in the past year?

[Innis Cabal]

I hardly see how that shoes E-Mail winning over paper. How many books have you read this year?

[Solaris]

We're talking about letters/documents/archives, not books. Books, I said, would happen in a couple of generations. I'm not even saying there aren't any more paper documents. I'm saying digits are a lot more prevalent.

[puppyavenger]

How many letters have you written in the past year?

40-50? to be fair, quite a few of those are from various organizations and enterprises who are either sending a monthly report or asking for money.

[Solaris]

40-50? to be fair, quite a few of those are from various organizations and enterprises who are either sending a monthly report or asking for money.

I suspect you're an outlier. Personal correspondence these days tends to take the form of e-mail significantly more often than it does the form of letter-mail. There was a time when this was unimaginable.
Dislike it though we may, none of the things we are fond of are permanent.

[golentan]

I suspect you're an outlier. Personal correspondence these days tends to take the form of e-mail significantly more often than it does the form of letter-mail. There was a time when this was unimaginable.
Dislike it though we may, none of the things we are fond of are permanent.

That's not true. I'm quite fond of vacuum. I'm pretty sure that will always be around.

Seriously speaking, did you know paperless offices use more paper than traditional offices? I had to write more than 100 letters for my work last week alone. I also sent a personal letter to a friend, and mailed a check for a parking ticket. I also received correspondence from other friends, from my grandparents, and received way more junkmail than I care to comment on.

Emails: I sent 5. One document to several coworkers, and 4 personal letters. I received more junkmail than any just and loving society or deity would allow, and received email notifications from subscribed websites.

The point being that the latter can't replace the former. Especially for business. If we sent our notifications by email, they'd be dismissed out of hand as junk, even if they'd be easier to send (they're catalogues to old customers). Personal letters can carry attached materiel (not of the military variety I hope) that email cannot, and can't be spam filtered. It can't compete with email for turnaround time, but apart from that is in many ways preferable. Most, even.

[JonestheSpy]

And as far as documentation... well, the advantages offered by digitizing records and the like is colossal. Why waste massive amounts of space and risk losing things, when everything you need is available at the push of a button?


Going afield a bit, I's just like to point out the flaw in this line of resoning. Computer systems are evolving constantly, and new systems can't always read the older ones. Has anyone out there got a 20-year old disk that can be read on their current computer?

Yeah, digital/online records are useful and convenient, but you have to have real-world backups or risk having your information be unaccessible before too much time passes.

Likewise, does anyone think that a Kindle you buy now will be able to read e-books that are published in a couple of decades? Kinda doubt it. A book can last for centuries and be picked up and understood by anyone who can read the language. Seems to me like they corporations are going to try and get people to shell out huge amounts of money for reading the same way they have for movies and music, making old forms obsolete and requiring regular updating to new sysems every few years (LP's/8track/cassettes/CD's/IPODs/who-knows-what's-next..).

[factotum]

Nope. While e-readers and the like are useful for light recreational reading, the permanency offered by physical media means that paper books will never be fully obsolete. When you write something down, it is down, and short of burning the paper it's written on you can always recover the information stored there.


Well, actually, you can't. Modern paper contains acids that eat it away over time--just look at a book that's only 40-50 years old and you'll see the pages are already turning brown; chances are it will have disintegrated entirely inside 100 years, 200 tops. This will happen even if you keep the book in perfect storage conditions. Older books don't have this issue, which is why they've lasted as long as they have!

[drakir_nosslin]

In related news, a couple articles I read in relation to the stock research I just did predicted the end of the printed medium in as few as 20 years, expecting e-readers like the Kindle to take over.

In a way I kind of look forward to this. It means that when I'm 60+ my young relatives and friends will marvel at the amazing library that I have. They will walk among the shelves, pick out a book, hold it and wonder why we ever bothered to have these clumsy bricks of paper instead of a simple screen.
And I'll be able to tell amazing tales of the great libraries where tens of thousands of books were stored, free for people to use and borrow. In the future it'll be interesting to look back on everything that has become obsolete in just a few decades, but also sad I guess.

[Magnor Criol]

Has anyone out there got a 20-year old disk that can be read on their current computer?

If you've got information on a 20-year-old disk that you haven't already backed up to some sort of more pertinent media already, how important could that information be? :smalltongue:

Corporations drive the money and invest in inventions, yes, but I think that the idea that they're pushing out new forms of media every so often just to cause consumers to spend money is far too conspiratorial. Someone invents a new form of media, and if it solves enough of the problems presented by the last form of media, corporations will get on board because they know that the populace as a whole likes new, more convenient things. This does naturally cause the spending-to-update events, but it's not as if the corporations cause the updates to be developed just so they get money. That's the effect they enjoy, but not the cause of the update.

I agree with your general principle, though; i.e., books are unlikely to ever really go out of style. In theory, the idea of electronic media eventually ousting paper makes sense, and might even be true in a very long-term view. But the theorists who are charged with that sort of positing often don't take into account simple, unquantifiable facts such as "people who like reading usually like physical books". The various numbers games cover all sorts of things but at the end of the day, pure emotional responses like those are just outside their ability to account for.

[thubby]

they thought radio would kill the news papers, it didn't
they said tv would kill radio, it didn't.
they thought skynet the internet would kill humanity humanity, it hasn't yet.

to the 20 year-old disc question, yes, actually i can. people keep writing programs for that very purpose.

[Solaris]

they thought radio would kill the news papers, it didn't
Internet's working on it.


they said tv would kill radio, it didn't.
MP3's doing it in.


they thought skynet the internet would kill humanity humanity, it hasn't yet.
Robot assassins in the skies.
Muahahaha.

[thubby]

Internet's working on it.

MP3's doing it in.

Robot assassins in the skies.
Muahahaha.

my entire point is that people are terrible at predicting this sort of thing. the whole "tv kills radio" idea seemed credible at the time too.

I'm disinclined to believe that a format as old as paper is going anywhere without some pretty damning evidence.
"extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and all

[KBF]

Just in case you haven't been keeping up, newspapers are actually dieing out. They're obsolete, people are getting news instantaneously and searchable from the net.

And e-readers are going to kill books in 20-30 years as new readers, children, teenagers, grow up with it and find their nostalgia in the screen and do not miss the feel of paper.

Simple as that. It's progress.



EDIT: Oh, and by the way, TV also just about killed the radio. It used to be mostly radio plays, now it's music because TV tells stories better. So it changed to music to survive. And MP3s and the internet are killing what it is now, so the only real need for it is in the car. MP3 players are killing that, and as soon as the internet can reach the road...


Oh, and on topic: Borders is the best bookstore around here. They have a cafe. I hope it survives here in the US, I don't like Barnes and Noble.

[Foeofthelance]

It may not be too far behind here, either. A quick glance at the stock market shows Borders is at this point barely keeping its stock high enough to qualify for the NYSE (it's currently trading at 1.51, and needs to stay above 1. The trend for the day, month, and year are all a steady dive).


Part of that seems to be their terrible business model. They think a once a month coupon is the equivalent of 20% off the entire store, since you don't have to pay for the coupon, and company policy is to not tell Rewards members that they have discounts to redeem. Barnes and Noble, on the other hand, charges $20 for a discount of at least 20% on everything, which most people make back in savings in one or two trips. Not to mention renting out to Starbucks to run the cafes, rather than doing it in house the way Borders does.

[Eldan]

Yeah, but Starbucks is terrible... I can get four cups of better coffee at the local cafeteria for the price of one of theirs.

[Foeofthelance]

True, but as far as I can tell Starbucks is also required to pay all the running fees, and may even be paying rent on being in BN space. So not only does BN not pay for the cafe, they get paid. Unlike Borders, which has to shell out for everything.

[Forbiddenwar]

Well, actually, you can't. Modern paper contains acids that eat it away over time--just look at a book that's only 40-50 years old and you'll see the pages are already turning brown; chances are it will have disintegrated entirely inside 100 years, 200 tops. This will happen even if you keep the book in perfect storage conditions. Older books don't have this issue, which is why they've lasted as long as they have!

Not true.
At least for paper made after 1990. Yes there is a problem with documents created between 1890 and 1990 and their acidity. However, for those that need to be, those documents acidity can be lowered to neutral, presevering them for 1,000s of years, in the right conditions.(cool, dark, dry and flat) Or documents can be copied on the paper that is acid free (100% of paper now). Books printed now can survive for thousands of years.
On top of that, all you need is eyes to access the information and understanding how images(letters) translate into ideas. No other equipment is needed.

Much better than your e-book, which you will have to re-rent (it is impossible to buy an e-book, you only rent it):
whenever your kindle breaks, and you get a new kindle. (90% of e-books only allow transfer to 1 device, if that 1 device breaks and you get a replacement, you won't be able to transfer that e-book to your working device, with having to re-rent it)
whenever you buy a newer model of the kindle. (big joke on those you bought Kindle 2, their kindle 1 books won't read, and many had to be reacquired.)
whenever amazon decides you have to buy all their e-books again. (yes, they do have the right to delete all your books on your account and on your device at any time. It's in the contract you agree to.)
Or in 5 years, tops. When the format is no longer accessible. (that's five human years, or 1,000 computer years. Can you understand old english?)

Now, e-books may replace some books. It is possible. But first, e-books must be as easy to buy, loan, rent, sell and discard as regular books (No DRM on e-books, nor devices). Until e-books are readable on any device, and you can buy them, and you can give an e-book to a friend to read, and sell them when your sick of them, just like you can do with a print book, printed books are much better than e-books. And, no matter what the technology industry comes up with, printed books will ALWAYS last longer. The only thing that last longer than paper is stone tablets. As long as you keep them cool, dark, dry and flat.

[Texas_Ben]

And e-readers are going to kill books in 20-30 years as new readers, children, teenagers, grow up with it and find their nostalgia in the screen and do not miss the feel of paper.


And how are they going to "grow up with it"? To do that, it would already have to be pervasive, something which is not the case.

[Forbiddenwar]

And how are they going to "grow up with it"? To do that, it would already have to be pervasive, something which is not the case.

Agreed. One thing e-books do NOT do at all, is children books.

[Jimorian]

As somebody elsewhere pointed out, on an airplane, you can't turn on your Kindle/e-reader until you reach altitude, but with a paperback, you can get through several chapters just during the time you're waiting to take off. :smallwink:

Regarding Borders in the U.S., current management has so botched things on the customer service front that the nearly 20% drop in sales is likely to be permanent. So while they may not die right away, I expect them to announce dozens of store closures after the first of the year. The big problem is they they have $375M in debt, and right now the stock value of the company is around $90M (compared to almost $2B 4 years ago).

B&N has only experienced sales drops that are in the 3-5% range which is in line with the overall economic drop, has no debt, and expects to be able to at least poach enough Borders customers over the next few years to keep up some growth while they work out a strategy to deal with the competition from Amazon/Costco/Target/Walmart/e-books.

[Innis Cabal]

I don't see Wal-Mart or Target being stiff competition. I could be wrong, I don't shop at either, but when you think of either you don't think of the new book that just came out.

[Jimorian]

The reason they are a MAJOR reason that the chain bookstores are having problems is that these discount stores are having a major price war on bestselling books, to the point that B&N and Borders would have to sell at a loss to keep up. This category used to be the bread-and-butter of the chains and produced most of the profit that let them carry that odd book about the history of elk-racing on the shelves.

So while Walmart and Target only carry maybe a couple hundred different titles at any time, these titles represent almost 20% of overall book sales in the country, and really take a bite out of the traditional bookstores' cash flow.

[Innis Cabal]

While that may be the case, and certainly I can see where it would be, bookstores as a whole often times cut better deals with memberships etc etc. Offering special time events, and in the end are far better for catalouging then say...Wal-Mart who only has the books on the shelf, like everything else.

While it may be a source of revenue loss, on a whole they are far less likely to lose to Wal-Mart, where retaling clothing stores or grocery stores are.

[Tyrant]

They think a once a month coupon is the equivalent of 20% off the entire store, since you don't have to pay for the coupon,
Just to make sure I am understanding you, you aren't saying they only have one coupon a month are you? They usually have them weekly and they are usually 30% (sometimes 40%). And, so long as you plan it out, you can use the coupons multiple times. Is it as convenient as just having a flat discount all the time, maybe not. Then again the coupons are free and the B&N flat discount costs you money up front.

and company policy is to not tell Rewards members that they have discounts to redeem.
I had kind of suspected this, actually. I figured it was either that or they just never bothered to check. It has upset me more than once. However, there have also been occasions when they have told me about my built up rewards.

Barnes and Noble, on the other hand, charges $20 for a discount of at least 20% on everything, which most people make back in savings in one or two trips.
Their website says 10% on almost everything, 20% on adult hardcovers, and 40% on bestsellers. Borders also has bestsellers on sale (30-40% off) most weeks.

Not to mention renting out to Starbucks to run the cafes, rather than doing it in house the way Borders does.
I will agree that is a better business model for that part.

[Foeofthelance]

Just to make sure I am understanding you, you aren't saying they only have one coupon a month are you? They usually have them weekly and they are usually 30% (sometimes 40%). And, so long as you plan it out, you can use the coupons multiple times. Is it as convenient as just having a flat discount all the time, maybe not. Then again the coupons are free and the B&N flat discount costs you money up front.

Problem is, a lot of the coupons Borders gives out are either heavily targeted to their goal items, or are just about the equivalent. Their main idea is that if they can get you into the store to buy one discounted item, then they can get you to purchase 3-4 items at full price. Instead people show up with the coupons, and as you point out, take what they've planned for. Barnes and Noble gives the bulk discount, and so people tend to make more bulk purchases since they don't have to worry about whether or not a coupon they might not have remembered to print is with them, or whether its expired, etc. Most people simply don't want to do the work. Just hand over the card or name & address, and get the discount is a much more attractive proposition.


Their website says 10% on almost everything, 20% on adult hardcovers, and 40% on bestsellers. Borders also has bestsellers on sale (30-40% off) most weeks.

Again, those are the "draw" discounts, like the ones above. BN still gives the discount on non-draw material, while borders makes you go through hoops.


I had kind of suspected this, actually. I figured it was either that or they just never bothered to check. It has upset me more than once. However, there have also been occasions when they have told me about my built up rewards.

Yeah, it was openly told to me. If you're a regular enough customer (and you probably are) than most employees just say the heck with it and let you know. Its the average Joe who has to keep guessing.

[Porthos]

Oh, and by the way, TV also just about killed the radio. It used to be mostly radio plays, now it's music because TV tells stories better. So it changed to music to survive. And MP3s and the internet are killing what it is now, so the only real need for it is in the car. MP3 players are killing that, and as soon as the internet can reach the road...

Errr.. No.

While one might, and I stress might, make that argument for the US (and I don't BTW), I hasten to remind people that the US != Rest of the World.

For instance, radio (plays, music, talk, whathaveyou) is still thriving in the UK. Radio Plays are still made, aired, and listened to over there. Radio One is still thought of as a Big Deal.

As for newspapers, I'll believe it when I see it. Sure the business model might change. And in fact it almost is guaranteed to. But there is still a market for newpapers out there. And as long as there is a market for something, someone will cater to it. Prices might go up. It might become a more "upscale" thing. Lots of things might happen to the model.

But the idea that a disposable, handy, portable, cheap, and flexible source of news and entertainment is just going to up and disappear because it has some competion? Yeah, don't think so.

[Mewtarthio]

While one might, and I stress might, make that argument for the US (and I don't BTW), I hasten to remind people that the US != Rest of the World.

You don't think that's necessarily true for the US? If radio plays aren't dead here, they make a really good job of hiding themselves.


As for newspapers, I'll believe it when I see it. Sure the business model might change. And in fact it almost is guaranteed to. But there is still a market for newpapers out there. And as long as there is a market for something, someone will cater to it. Prices might go up. It might become a more "upscale" thing. Lots of things might happen to the model.

But the idea that a disposable, handy, portable, cheap, and flexible source of news and entertainment is just going to up and disappear because it has some competion? Yeah, don't think so.

I don't think there is a market for newspapers anymore. Books have a number of advantages over e-readers that people in this thread have already enumerated. Newspapers, on the other hand... I can't think of any advantage newspapers have over the internet.

[golentan]

You don't think that's necessarily true for the US? If radio plays aren't dead here, they make a really good job of hiding themselves.

Okay, but how about talk radio? And NPR still hosts Prairie Home Companion, a good old fashioned variety show. Not to mention all of the news, gameshows, and other stuff. And before you say that's a small sector of radio, 20 million people tune in every week. That's 1/15th (about) of the US population. And don't underestimate the power of music radio. They get tuned into by almost everyone with a car at some point, and do more than just music. Targeted advertising, PSAs, sketches, brief news, trivia, whatever.


I don't think there is a market for newspapers anymore. Books have a number of advantages over e-readers that people in this thread have already enumerated. Newspapers, on the other hand... I can't think of any advantage newspapers have over the internet.

How about that it's a physical reference that can't be taken from you? It can be reused (reduce, recycle) in any number of ways, covers local material far more easily (it's almost impossible to seek out local news stories online) and is delivered in a neat, self sorted package with the major issues of the day neatly summarized in front without any sort of risk of being hacked by some college student looking to prank the nation. And if you have a network crash? Hoo boy. Watch that southpark on the Internet (Why is there no internet?! I don't know, I can't go on the internet to find out why there's no internet!).

I'm always leery of trusting infrastructure that can be wiped out by one kid with copper tubing and an electrical socket. Even more so when it's the first thing likely to be targeted in any sort of major war scenario (can you think of any easier infrastructure targets? Plus if it goes to nukes, they generate an EMP for you while in atmo).

Boom. Good reasons for newspapers and radio. Thank you. Thank you. *takes a bow*

[Shhalahr Windrider]

I can't think of any advantage newspapers have over the internet.
I can read a newspaper at the breakfast table, for one. :smalltongue:

[Porthos]

You don't think that's necessarily true for the US? If radio plays aren't dead here, they make a really good job of hiding themselves.

No, I don't think Radio Plays have a market in the US anymore. :smallwink: However Talk/Sports Radio is still alive and well. And probably will be for the forseeable future.

However, more to the point, I was taking issue with the idea that Radio Music is dying in the US. I certainly haven't seen any indication of that.


I don't think there is a market for newspapers anymore. Books have a number of advantages over e-readers that people in this thread have already enumerated. Newspapers, on the other hand... I can't think of any advantage newspapers have over the internet.

Newspapers can be taken into the bath for one. Not so a Kindle. :smallwink: Moreover they are a Disposable Product. They also serve as an aggreagator and a one-stop-shoping. Sure the idea of Newspapers being the source for Breaking News might be coming to an end. But as a place for people to get commentary, analysis, or non-time sensitive content (comics, advice columnists, movie reviews, ads for local stores), they are still hard to beat.

Newspapers can also excel (if they choose to) at Investigative Reporting that others either see the lack of patience to do (Big Media Networks) or have the lack of manpower to do (Internet Bloggers). Say what you will about Net Investigation (and I will say a lot that's posititve about it), but a lot of the scoops that the Blogistan gets is from newspapers.

Besides, there is just something to be said for the feel of a crumpled up newspaper. Or leaving one on the bus. Or even better finding one on the bus. :smallbiggrin:

The internet is great for a lot of things. But it's not the end-all and be-all of everything.

[Texas_Ben]

I don't think there is a market for newspapers anymore. Books have a number of advantages over e-readers that people in this thread have already enumerated. Newspapers, on the other hand... I can't think of any advantage newspapers have over the internet.
Newspapers are suffering, to be sure, but most of that comes from their seeming lack of willingness to change their business models to suit the times.

[PhoeKun]

Errr.. No.

While one might, and I stress might, make that argument for the US (and I don't BTW), I hasten to remind people that the US != Rest of the World.

For instance, radio (plays, music, talk, whathaveyou) is still thriving in the UK. Radio Plays are still made, aired, and listened to over there. Radio One is still thought of as a Big Deal.

As for newspapers, I'll believe it when I see it. Sure the business model might change. And in fact it almost is guaranteed to. But there is still a market for newpapers out there. And as long as there is a market for something, someone will cater to it. Prices might go up. It might become a more "upscale" thing. Lots of things might happen to the model.

But the idea that a disposable, handy, portable, cheap, and flexible source of news and entertainment is just going to up and disappear because it has some competion? Yeah, don't think so.

Well...

I can't speak for people outside of the US, because I'm not (nor am I an expert on foreign cultures), but what I see is a pretty radical shift in the ways we get most everything.

TV didn't kill the radio, and it never will, but podcasts are brutally murdering it. There are large sections of this country that are only hazily aware that the radio even still exists for reasons other than broadcasting for their mp3 player.

And newspapers are dying, whether you want to believe it or not. They certainly don't, but that's not putting them out of business any slower. The only one managing to survive is the New York Times, and that's because they've restructured themselves to not rely on selling newspapers.

As you say, a product that is " a disposable, handy, portable, cheap, and flexible source of news and entertainment" won't just up and disappear. A newspaper is none of those. It is clumsy, expensive, inflexible (you can't report on news that happens after a certain point in the day, or you'll never get your print run finished in time), and... well, it is disposable. In fact, most of it goes straight in the trash without being read. But the sections that vanish are different from person to person, and significant enough that you can't cut them without significantly hurting your sales and upsetting your readership. So you have to waste money, instead.

Electronic news, on the other hand, adapts at an instant, accepts corrections after it's been released. It's phenomenally cheap, and allows people to only look at what they're interested in with minimal wasted time. For the most part, what people turn to is blogs.

It isn't really a case of technology replacing older mediums because its so much better and you must bow before the march of progress, rawr. What's really happening is that the advent of these new technologies is allowing more people to get their voice out where people can hear it. And when it comes down to it, people are generally more interested in content they can select for themselves. They'd rather read blogs that focus on topics that interest them than pick up a paper with a bunch of stuff they don't care about. They'd rather listen to a podcast and pick what they listen to than search for something on the radio and hope they get the timing right. Viral media defeats corporate media, unless the corporation goes viral.

Now, e-books don't offer this paradigm shift. On the contrary, they do the exact opposite. So I'm not exactly sure they'll have the impact the stock market is predicting they will, unless something happens in the world of e-books that completely revolutionizes the way reading and buying books works. But there has to be something there, because early sales figures show people are eating this stuff up. Is it just people lusting after the latest cool gizmo? I dunno. But I'm uncomfortable with what it might mean if this is a trend and not just a fad...

[Porthos]

Newspapers are suffering, to be sure, but most of that comes from their seeming lack of willingness to change their business models to suit the times.

Speaking about the meme of newspapers suffering:

http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/02/26/newspapers-still-profitable-wall-street-still-greedy/
http://online.barrons.com/article_email/SB125633654783004637-lMyQjAxMDI5NTI2NDMyMzQ2Wj.html
http://www.record-bee.com/ci_13821077
http://www.slate.com/id/2233849/

Point is that while the newspaper industry as a whole is not as profitible as it once was, and while there are some pretty high profile failures (Rocky Mountain News and the Seattle PI to name a couple), most of the newspapers out there are still turning a profit.

Are there Warning Signs out there? You betcha. Should there be things that the Newspaper Industry as a Whole should be looking at as a way to stave of future problems? Naturally.

But to suggest that modern newspapers are this close (*makes a small gap between fingers*) to going away is to buy the MSM (and Net :smalltongue:) Spin. :smallamused:


And newspapers are dying, whether you want to believe it or not.

Then why are they still profitable? :smallsmile:

[PhoeKun]

Then why are they still profitable? :smallsmile:

Because there's a difference between a dying industry and a non-profitable one. Yes, not every newspaper is in immediate danger of insolvency, but the current business model (the one that relies on the paper) is running out of room to operate in the black. The market is shrinking, especially with the New York Times buying up everything it can.

The US auto industry was in trouble years before it came crashing to its knees. You mentioned it yourself - the industry needs to change. For the most part, it isn't. Before too long, there's going to be a major culling of the herd.

[Porthos]

Because there's a difference between a dying industry and a non-profitable one.

True enough.


Yes, not every newspaper is in immediate danger of insolvency,

If what you mean by "not every" is the vast majority, then I absolutely agree with you. But if you mean "most are in danger of insolvency", then I am afraid the facts don't back you up.


but the current business model (the one that relies on the paper) is running out of room to operate in the black. The market is shrinking, especially with the New York Times buying up everything it can.

The market is shrinking? Really? Compared to what? One year ago? Five? Ten?

The NYT is buying up everything it can? Double Really?

I think I would like to see a few years of trends myself before agreeing that the market is irrevocably dissapearing. :smallsmile:


The US auto industry was in trouble years before it came crashing to its knees. You mentioned it yourself - the industry needs to change. For the most part, it isn't. Before too long, there's going to be a major culling of the herd.

Yeah. Well, I'll believe it when I see it.

Besides, another thought just struck me.

One thing that newspapers absolutely outshine EVERYONE ELSE is on Local News Content. Unless one lives in a really big city, there isn't really going to be enough coverage on the Net for Local News and happenings. If I want to know whats going on in my town, the first place I will turn to is my local rag. The local TV stations, as good as they are, aren't going to deliver enough detailed info. And searching for a blog or website devoted to news in my town can be an excerize in frustration.

TMZ and the like are great for what they do. But coverage of local events in regular old towns? Not so much. :smallwink:

[HotAndCold]

My town's newspaper has a website, and I'm pretty sure all their articles are duplicated there, for what it's worth on that topic.

[Porthos]

My town's newspaper has a website, and I'm pretty sure all their articles are duplicated there, for what it's worth on that topic.

And they get ad revenue for it as well.

Whether it's profitable or not is a highly debated subject, of course. :smallwink:

A couple of High Profile failures notwithstanding I'd actually like to see some actual, you know, evidence that newspapers are about to go the way of the dodo.

Beyond the anecdotal that is. :smalltongue:

[Forbiddenwar]

But there has to be something there, because early sales figures show people are eating this stuff up. Is it just people lusting after the latest cool gizmo? I dunno. But I'm uncomfortable with what it might mean if this is a trend and not just a fad...

Actually, I do believe the increase of sales of e-books are due to a minority purchasing more, rather than more people purchasing that format.
That, or, as many recent studies suggest, people are reading more. A lot more. These studies show that more and more people are reading more and more books, in more and more formats. Print, Audio, and electronic readers have drastically increased in the last 10 years. So it's no surprise that e-book sales are up. Especially that, unlike the other formats, it is nearly impossible to get an e-book from the library to read on a device, other than a computer.


And they get ad revenue for it as well.

Whether it's profitable or not is a highly debated subject, of course. :smallwink:

A couple of High Profile failures notwithstanding I'd actually like to see some actual, you know, evidence that newspapers are about to go the way of the dodo.

Beyond the anecdotal that is. :smalltongue:

Agreed. Evolve or die. True for dodos and newspapers. Those newspapers that are failing are failing due to an inability or unwillingness to change.

[PhoeKun]

If what you mean by "not every" is the vast majority, then I absolutely agree with you. But if you mean "most are in danger of insolvency", then I am afraid the facts don't back you up.

There are a few major examples of newspapers that are on life support at this point, but you're right that at the moment, they're still financially viable.




One thing that newspapers absolutely outshine EVERYONE ELSE is on Local News Content. Unless one lives in a really big city, there isn't really going to be enough coverage on the Net for Local News and happenings. If I want to know whats going on in my town, the first place I will turn to is my local rag. The local TV stations, as good as they are, aren't going to deliver enough detailed info. And searching for a blog or website devoted to news in my town can be an excerize in frustration.

TMZ and the like are great for what they do. But coverage of local events in regular old towns? Not so much. :smallwink:

This is actually a very good point, and it goes to the crux of what I was talking about earlier. Technology doesn't replace older things just because it's better. It does so because it allows people to focus on the stuff they care about more easily while ignoring the stuff they don't. As of yet, there really isn't a good source of local news, which means local newspapers will continue to function just fine for the foreseeable future.

It's ludicrously difficult to completely stamp out a medium. But the days of newspapers ruling the world are over.

Side note: I now have the image in my head of a world populated by newspaper dinosaurs. The sports page is a T-Rex, and its trying to eat the business triceratops. I just thought I'd share that with everyone.

[Porthos]

It's ludicrously difficult to completely stamp out a medium.

That's mostly what I've been thinking all along. :smallwink:


But the days of newspapers ruling the world are over.

Well, yeah. But I never argued to the contrary. :smalltongue:

If you want my personal opinion of what is happening, I think that there are (going to be) a lot of sources for people to get what they want (whether it's news, sports, entertainment, local happenigns, or whatever). And for that reason, apart from a Few Big Players (online and off), narrowcasting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrowcasting) is the name of the game in the future.

To put this in Net Terms, for every Deadline Hollywood Daily out there, there are thousands of "small time" websites that still chug along, doing their thing.

It's already been proven that with enough determination and luck, one can make a successful business at the narrowcasting game. Heck, even the book industry was built on narrowcasting for the most part (most authors aren't multi-million sellers after all :smallwink:). And, as I think about it, so is Cable TV. Including Cable News.

So, to bring this back to the current discussion, can newspapers (and I'm not talking about the Big Boys like the Gannentt's and the McClatchey's of the world) succesfully transition to a more narrowcasting philosophy? I think they can. It's really the same philosophy of local grocery stores surviving the Super Walmart juggernaught: Find a niche, cater to it, and see if you succeed or fail.

Sure they'll have to adjust the business model. Maybe make the Net end of the equation more of a profit driver than the print. Maybe make the print end a "luxury extra" for ease of convenience. Lots of different things come to mind, really.

And as for the Big Boys? Dunno. But I do know that even now McClatchy (which are the owners of my local newspaper the Sacramento Bee) is really digging around finding out things that no one else is touching. And as long as newspapers can dig up actual news, then there'll be a place for them.

So I guess that would be the niche that the Big Newspapers can go for: Investigative Reporting.

Gawds know that the TV Networks hardly do any of that. :smalltongue:

[Reinboom]

A bit of random information, and food for though, is that Abitibi-Bowater, the U.S.'s previous largest supplier of newsprint, recently filed a chapter 11 (http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2009/fortune/0905/gallery.yang_hitting.fortune/index.html). Of course, the company is still in existence, and the need for the chapter 11 was also in large part due to the previous merger, however, the advent of web news has been said to have played a major part in this filing.
The company is refinancing (http://www.bowater.com/media/latest-news.aspx?id=636&detail=true&reqid=1116468), however.

In many areas, in the U.S., you can see these effects within newspaper availability. New trends in paper cost trying to either spark profits or spark interest again, usually resulting in one of either steep price jumps, or significant price cuts (Washington Post being the most noticeable shift on the latter).

[Texas_Ben]

But there has to be something there, because early sales figures show people are eating this stuff up.
I don't really know what you mean by "eating this stuff up". I know a lot of people who read a lot. I don't know anyone who owns an e-reader. They've been trying to push these things for what, three years now? And by now most of the hype has died down (as far as I can tell). I'm in class right now so I can't find detailed sales numbers over time, but if anyone wants to dig those up and post them, it would be very helpful.

[Tavar]

From what my searches reveal, while not all e-readers are successful, one's like Amazon's Kindle continue to enjoy increasing sales.

[Joran]

Barnes and Noble is also debuting their new Nook, which is supposed to compete against the Kindle. My favorite features are the color touchscreen controls and the ability to browse books within the Barnes and Noble store.

As for newspapers, we have to differentiate between newspapers, the medium, and newspaper journalism, the content. Newspaper journalism was mostly paid for by advertising in the paper, both classifieds and normal ads. Classifieds in the newspaper are a dead revenue source; Craigslist and Monster have replaced those. Advertisement rates are down with the recessions forcing companies to cut back, so that revenue stream is going downhill. Ads used to subsidize the subscription fees; my local newspaper, the Washington Post used to be 35 cents; it's now up to 75 cents (if not a dollar now). Needless to say, circulation has also dropped.

Unfortunately for newspapers, no one has come up with a formula to make money off of the Internet. Subscriptions don't work because people will just migrate to another source; the one notable failure is the New York Times. Advertising on the Internet pays pennies. So, until someone can find a revenue model to make up for the loss revenue from the papers, the newspaper industry will continue its death spiral.

By death spiral, I mean job cuts, buyouts, and other ways to rein in costs. All around the newspaper industry, the newspapers are cutting back the number of pages, the number of columnists, subsidizing out features like movie reviews or concert reviews. They're cutting away at what they can while still putting out a decent product.

Oddly enough, the newspaper industry has more reach now than before the Internet. I wouldn't be surprised if the Washington Post is read by more people now than its heyday in the 60's and 70's; there is a demand for newspaper journalism. However, that has yet to result in more money. Blogs usually don't contribute their own reporting; they just link or quote things from larger organizations. So, until a new revenue model is found, journalism is going to be in a decline.

[TheEmerged]

While I do not approve of most large chain bookstores because they destroy most smaller, indie bookstores, I had liked borders more than I disliked Barn's and Nobles.
I also don't see the printed media phasing out until they can produce a cheap (no matter what you or amazon say, I've yet to find a cheap kindle) alternative that can be bought as off-the-rack as a dimestore paperback can.

And isn't subject to being deleted because someone ELSE thinks it should be deleted.

RE: Newspaper Decline. There are several reasons for this. For myself, I essentially continue to get the local paper for the obituaries. If a practical way to get those without the dead trees comes around, I'm done.

Our 'local' rag exists in name only, having been taken over by another rag in a nearby city a few years back. It no longer reflects local values, and is so slanted on some issues SNL wouldn't run some of their editorials as parody. For two years running now, they haven't even printed the fair results (and frankly, if you aren't running county fair results around here you shouldn't be able to call yourself a local paper). The last time I checked, fully 2/3 of the classifieds were outside of the county.

[Lycan 01]

That's because you have a soul. I've run into e-books and found I dislike 'em. I don't like peering at a computer screen when I'm trying to read a story, and I never have the same memory-bond with the screen that I do with an actual book (so internet-based research doesn't work nearly so well as paper-based research).

Then again, I'm the kinda guy who insists on paying for everything in cash, and would much rather go to a store and ask for them to order something from one of their suppliers than go online and order it myself. I refuse to go to an automated cashier-thingie, too. I dislike encouraging companies to remove people/physical things in exchange for machines/data. I know I'm a dying breed, and I have little doubt that in a generation or two your descendants will wonder at how we ever struggled by with paper books.


Thank you. I would have struggled to express my own feelings, but you seem to have described them all perfectly in this entire post. Printed books ftw, and I prefer to pay in cash and avoid computer and automated business.


In regards to Borders...

NOOOOOOOOO!!!!! :smalleek:


I love Borders. Its one of my favorite "home-away-from-home-that-is-actually-a-store-of-some-sort" places. I'd buy stuff their more often, but I'm also kinda picky about what I like to read... If they had a bigger Warhammer 40K selection, they'd have to drag me out. :smalltongue:

[Texas_Ben]

What's with all the Borders love in this thread? They have a pretty big selection, but in my experience it is hard to find what you want from that selection, and their employees are grouchy. Also they usually play terrible "music". I swear, one time I went in and they were playing a CD of a woman speaking angrily in french. I buy mah books at Barnes & Noble, thank you very much, and only go to Borders when I want something I can't find there.

[Joran]

What's with all the Borders love in this thread? They have a pretty big selection, but in my experience it is hard to find what you want from that selection, and their employees are grouchy. Also they usually play terrible "music". I swear, one time I went in and they were playing a CD of a woman speaking angrily in french. I buy mah books at Barnes & Noble, thank you very much, and only go to Borders when I want something I can't find there.

Frankly, I find the two interchangeable, outside that the Barnes and Nobles tend to have comfier chairs and are convenient to my house.

The Borders that was closest to my house liquidated and I was tempted to buy some of the signage for a super library in my house.

[Telonius]

I dunno, I was never really sold on the whole "book" thing. Nothing will ever quite replace the feeling of unrolling those vellum scrolls, and being the only one in the room who can make any sense of them. Course they said that about clay tablets, too...

[Joran]

I dunno, I was never really sold on the whole "book" thing. Nothing will ever quite replace the feeling of unrolling those vellum scrolls, and being the only one in the room who can make any sense of them. Course they said that about clay tablets, too...

Please, the tried and true format is bamboo scrolls; we have original copies of the Analects of Confucius in that format. Besides, bamboo is renewable!

[Eldan]

Pch. Cave paintings are the only true format. Where is your bamboo now, eh? We are talking about media of lasting value.

[warty goblin]

I dunno, I was never really sold on the whole "book" thing. Nothing will ever quite replace the feeling of unrolling those vellum scrolls, and being the only one in the room who can make any sense of them. Course they said that about clay tablets, too...

Modern people get uppity with their 'paper' and 'books' and 'hard drives' but just remember this: You burn a book, you upset some people and get a small pile of ash. You burn a good clay tablet, you get a more permanent clay tablet, which you can whack people with.

[Jimorian]

I dunno, I was never really sold on the whole "book" thing. Nothing will ever quite replace the feeling of unrolling those vellum scrolls, and being the only one in the room who can make any sense of them. Course they said that about clay tablets, too...

Your name must be Ansgarr. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aX0-nqRmtos)