/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16795161]

How should bookstores evolve to meet the challenges of our age?

[Anonymous No.16795164]

>>16795161
Ban women from entering.

[Anonymous No.16795170]

BOOBA

[Anonymous No.16795173]

>>16795161
Women only, no shoes allowed

[Anonymous No.16795179]

>>16795164
literally the only reason to go

[Anonymous No.16795180]

>>16795173
Patrician.

[Anonymous No.16795199]

>>16795161
Gdje je ovo slikano? Zakleo bih se da znam ovu knjižaru

[Anonymous No.16795221]

>>16795161
For sale: book, never read

[Anonymous No.16795314]

>>16795161
Stop selling ginsburg dolls and lgbt woke books in the children's section for one.

[Anonymous No.16795510]

>>16795173
Based Deshoddist femanon

[Anonymous No.16795823]

>>16795161
Well, keeping an up-to-date inventory online for which stores actually have the book would be a big help. If I had a nickel for every time I saw a book was available, went to the store, looked, found nothing, ask a clerk and they reply with, "sorry, anon. It's not here, but we can ship it to you." If I wanted it shipped to me, I wouldn't have bothered coming in the first place.
Another would be actually getting good selections of books instead of shitloads of fandom/weeb shit. No one but the dorkiest of dorks is going to shell out $60 for a single 20 lbs GoT or HP bookend. Likewise, who goes to a bookstore for fucking legos or those little plush backpack dolls? If they actually had interesting books instead of shitloads of gay fanfics, money grab opinions disguised as contemporary political writings, and fake boring shit about muh racism or muh womanhood, they could do a lot better.
For the better off bookstores, having a selection of reading tablets and whatnot would honestly make sense. Something that can be tried out right there and then, and then offer a discounted membership on pdfs offered by the store.

>>16795314
This as well.

[Anonymous No.16795839]

The challenges of our age, or any age at that, are beyond the scope of book stores. Sorry to say, anon.

[Anonymous No.16795840]

>>16795161
Cater to the niche that still actually reads literature. This means slowly get rid of the boomer books, and start moving the manga, boardgames, fantasy and such to the forefront so that the sweaty losers who still visit bookstores get what they want

[Anonymous No.16795890]

>>16795840
>Cater to the niche that still actually reads literature

Can a store survive on the patronage of anime-loving monarchists alone?

[Anonymous No.16795907]

>>16795161

[Anonymous No.16795910]

>>16795890
Well its not like anyone else goes there anyway. Also look at Spencers.

[Anonymous No.16795927]

>>16795907

If money = power, why doesn't this guy have his own country by now?

[Anonymous No.16796031]

>>16795927
because he's no where near the wealthiest only publicly so

[Anonymous No.16796145]

>>16795840
>Move all the sweaty shit to the front.
You don't know much about strategic placement, do you. It's clear that they already cater to the sweaty horde because all of the stuff is in the back, making them walk past the shitty fanfics, spin-offs, and other boring shit on their way to get there. Like grocery stores, they keep all the essential stuff far from the entrance and put all the junk in the front at the eye-level of the target audiences so that they can be distracted into buying shit. Ever wonder why the milk/eggs are on one side of the store and bread on the other side with junk food in between, or milk/eggs/bread in the back and the junk food is in the way? Places like B&N are already a lost cause for most people who are actually looking for quality reading material.

[Anonymous No.16796147]

[Anonymous No.16796165]

>>16795161
Booba!

[Anonymous No.16796181]

>>16795161
sick boobas

[Anonymous No.16796193]

>>16795840
Classics sell like hotcakes, though. Also, manga and boardgames aren't literature.

[Anonymous No.16796337]

>>16795840
women are like 90% of the reading market

[Anonymous No.16797036]

Get more of those in them

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.16797053]

>>16795927
He has a huge influence in the US govt.

[Anonymous No.16797081]

>>16795173
Not even a footfag and I find this prescription undeniably based.

[Anonymous No.16797275]

>>16795161
So i googled that picture and are you telling me thats not from a series of pictures with boobaas coming out at one point? Looks like thats some instagram "model". God i am so fuckin done with you zoomer losers. Also regarding the topic. You can't save them. In general physical stores have a big problem to meet the requirements of the age. A book store? Wew, that got to be the nightmare mode.

[Anonymous No.16797318]

>>16796193
Yes they are

[Anonymous No.16797350]

>>16795164
Women are the majority of their customers, this move would very quickly kill the physical book industry entirely.

[Anonymous No.16797561]

>>16795161
The progress of a nation is correlated w the ugliness of its women
whiteboyfacts #6002

[Anonymous No.16797658]

>>16795173
>i identify as woman
how do you respond

[Anonymous No.16797667]

>>16795161
No books by jews allowed.

[Anonymous No.16797669]

>>16795164
last time i went to a bookstore a nice woman actually chatted me up

[Anonymous No.16797831]

>>16796031
gimme the real top 5 right now

[Anonymous No.16798194]

>>16797831
old banking families mostly

[Anonymous No.16798201]

>>16797318
>my ability
>recharge
dropped. don't ever post trash like that again.

[Anonymous No.16798207]

>>16795161
LOCAL bookstores at least are not being challenged. Rather, they tend to be the solution to certain challenges: providing economic anchors while being resilient over long periods of time, enhancing social cohesion and community, etc. Ask not what you can do for your bookstore, but what your bookstore can do for you.
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2019/1/8/local-bookstores

[Anonymous No.16798228]

>>16797658
No

>>16797667
Yes

[Anonymous No.16798243]

The smaller specialized stores seem to be thriving in my city. There's a few Christian stores and one with new age witchcraft type horseshit. Other than that the simple fact is that physical bookstores are not an efficient business model. They're not good at knowing or predicting what people want so thy waste a lot of money stocking books nobody wants. This is a problem that Amazon has a solution for and its why they're so successful.

[Anonymous No.16798289]

>>16795161
In Germany there is the Buchpreisbindung which means Fixed book price. So Monopolists like Amazon dont get an advantage by selling a larger amount of books for a smaller price. I guess that helps the little bookshops a little bit.

Do other countries have familiar mechanics?

[Anonymous No.16798307]

>>16795199
U picki maternoj

[Anonymous No.16798337]

>>16795161
Bookstores should be obliged by federal law to hire trannies in miniskirts for putting books on top shelves.

[Anonymous No.16798371]

>>16798289
Most countries aren't going to punish businesses for being better and more efficient unless it's an absolutely critical industry, like steel. All they're doing in Germany is making books more expensive in order to protect the business owners who are less skilled at getting customers what they want.

Bookstores should fail when they're bad at predicting what customers want, which results in a large amounts of resources spent stocking books that won't sell. This isn't a problem for smaller specialty bookstores or online bookstores like Amazon since they either know the specific audience they're catering to or they work off the 'on demand model' of online retail. It's not even proper to call Amazon a bookstore since it's a platform which allows people to sell things and it is what's keeping most bookstores in business since they actually give those stores a worldwide customer base.

[Anonymous No.16798698]

>>16798371
You are this deep in Amazons ass i cant even see you anymore

There are plenty reasons to work against a monopoly especially in cultural sector.

[Anonymous No.16798717]

>>16798698
Amazon is literally not a monopoly. You're an idiot. Sure, you could punish businesses for being more effective and raise the cost of goods for consumers but I would rather people have easier access to a wider variety of books at cheaper cost. I don't think there's an inherent virtue in being a small business owner. Especially in a non critical industry like book retail. They don't need protecting.

[Anonymous No.16798927]

>>16798717
>sells millions of articles to millions of customers couldn't buy elsewhere
>"isn't a monopoly"
if that isn't a monopoly then there has never been such a thing

[Anonymous No.16798944]

>>16798927
Mono is one, monopoly means one business in control of the market. Amazon does not even sell books. It is a marketplace that allows other people to books. It's not even the only marketplace online, let alone being the only marketplace period.

[Anonymous No.16798990]

>>16798944
If your analysis was true, your sound argument would be valid. However, as Amazon is not only a marketplace, but also a reseller, a seller, a producer, a subscription service, and much more, you are wrong. First they bond customers to their services, then they produce a certain offer only they offer, and then they set the prize. Many books, ebooks, audiobooks and copies are only sold by them.

[Anonymous No.16799004]

Who is she?

[Anonymous No.16799015]

>>16795161
SISA JEBOTE

[Anonymous No.16799027]

>>16795173
Based

[Anonymous No.16799030]

>>16798990
Yes, Amazon provides better services than the competition. How is this an argument against Amazon? Destroying Amazon isn't going to make the inferior business models any better. It only increases the costs of books and limits the variety of products customers have to choose from. Local bookstores aren't going to start carrying obscure philosophy books that can only be found on Amazon and they're certainly not going to offer the same services Amazon currently offers or they would already be doing it since it's clearly profitable for Amazon. They don't do it because they don't have the ability or skills.

[Anonymous No.16799062]

>>16799030
Amazon can only provide better services by working at a loss. They do this deliberately to destroy the competition. Once that competition no longer exists they can set the price as high as they want and earn the money back.

[Anonymous No.16799078]

>>16799062
Amazon is not working at a loss and competition still exists. If it was as you say, shouldn't they be the only online marketplace or the only place to buy books?

[Anonymous No.16799093]

>>16799062
>>16799078
Assuming Amazon operated at a loss and completely killed the competition making them the only online retailer, is there anything stopping new competition from starting up once Amazon raises the prices to become profitable again?

[Anonymous No.16799143]

>>16799093
Did you not learn about monopolies in Economics 101? Monopolies always become too big for any competition to stand a chance, much less new competition. Usually the only way to make the market competitive again is government interference.

[Anonymous No.16799174]

>>16799143
>Usually the only way to make the market competitive again is government interference.
https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-google-facebook-and-amazon-abused-monopoly-power-house-report-says/
This is literally the case, they just have to intervene now. Hopefully Daddy Joe does something.

[Anonymous No.16799303]

>>16799143
You're still misusing the word monopoly so don't try to condescend to me about "economics 101". A monopoly is one company controlling a market. Amazon is not the only online retailer so they are literally not a monopoly. Buying out new businesses is not preventing new competition from entering the market because it's a voluntary transaction and newer people can continue to start up., so even if they were a "natural monopoly" that would be perfectly fine. The newer competition fails because Amazon is providing a superior service at lower costs and they will continue to be at the top so long as they do that.

Honestly man, I don't like defending Amazon because I am a nationalist with strong protectionist preferences and I think their politics and censorship is reprehensible. I make an exception for Amazon book selling because what they've done is amazing. They've opened a world of literature to consumers who would not have had access to half as many books outside of a university setting. The average worker today can amass a library that is larger and more varied than even the richest man of 100 years ago and Amazon is a large reason that is so.

[Anonymous No.16799311]

>>16798289
>So Monopolists like Amazon

Amazon isn't a monopoly in the traditional sense--other online retailers exist. Are you using this word to mean something weaker like 'control over prices'? Does Amazon even have the power to set prices?

[Anonymous No.16799349]

>>16799311
>Amazon isn't a monopoly in the traditional sense--other online retailers exist.
>Amazon controls 38% of US online sales -- Walmart, its nearest competitor, has just shy of 6% -- and has data on other retailers using the giant platform.
They either sell the product or controll who sells what. These tech giants may not have absolute monopoly, in the traditional sense, but they are the gatekeepers of the internet and as such have great power

[Anonymous No.16799352]

>>16795161
Alphabetize shit more then maybe my ass can actually find the books I want.

My personal hang ups aside, stop forcing shit books down my throat. I don’t give two shits about the latest feminist or shitty LGBT book unless there’s actually more substance within the book other than pandering to the easiest market: teen girls and gays. Don’t put those in the store front, put them off to the side. Put the good historical fiction or fantasy steampunk shit in my face, I’ll happily purchase that.

[Anonymous No.16799358]

>>16799352

The alphabet is dead old man. We sort by color now.

[Anonymous No.16799365]

>>16799358
>We sort by color now.
Are we talking quantum color here or what?

[Anonymous No.16799399]

>>16799349
>they are the gatekeepers of the internet and as such have great power

I kind of agree with this, but also conclude that attempting to control that power through government only further entrenches the company as it becomes a de facto extension of the government. The only way to bring Amazon to its knees is to expose it to harsh market pressures. Time will do the rest.

[Anonymous No.16799477]

>>16799399
>but also conclude that attempting to control that power through government only further entrenches the company as it becomes a de facto extension of the government.
Government internvention doesn't mean take control over the company. It just means level the playing field in the market. This happened in the 80s with the US vs Mircrosoft where they forced them to keep Windows open to other browsers not just Internet Explorer.

[Anonymous No.16799515]

>>16799477
That case was bullshit. Windows was always open to other browsers.

[Anonymous No.16799561]

>>16799174
>Hopefully Daddy Joe does something.
kek.

[Anonymous No.16799591]

>>16799515
The purpose of the case was to get cheaper volume licenses for government, and system integration with spytech. And of course to make the government look like it was doing something. Everyone did and still does hate windows for being frustrating to use. So the action was popular if misunderstood.

[Anonymous No.16799628]

>>16799591
>And of course to make the government look like it was doing something.
They were doing something. Reducing Microsofts monopoly led to the creation of other giants such as Google and Facebook. Now they are the ones in the way that prevent newer companies from getting big.

[Anonymous No.16799646]

>>16799628
>Monopoly
Stop using this word until you figure out what it means.

[Anonymous No.16799653]

>>16799628
>Microsoft had a monopoly on search and social media

[Anonymous No.16799658]

>>16799646
>technicalities
Pluropoly, you could call it then.

[Anonymous No.16799677]

>>16799515
>That case was bullshit

They thought Microsoft was going to take over the world, and then Google came along. The same mistake was made with IBM. None of these giants retain their power for more than a century. They find ways to self-destruct all on their own.

[Anonymous No.16799691]

>>16799646
>>16799653
>Even without a split, the Microsoft settlement is credited with giving web companies like Google — and browsers like Google Chrome, which overtook Internet Explorer in 2012 — space to grow. “They don’t owe everything to antitrust, but they owe a sizable debt to the antitrust law,” technology law expert Tim Wu told The Verge earlier this week. (Wu has previously noted that Microsoft benefited from an ‘80s antitrust case against IBM.)
Now shup up and sit down in your child chairs businesslets

[Anonymous No.16799700]

>>16799677
>None of these giants retain their power for more than a century. They find ways to self-destruct all on their own.
see
>>16799677
It was always because the goverment interferes in order to make space for other companies to grow. Much like they did to oil and railways barons in the 19th century

[Anonymous No.16799703]

>>16799658
It's not a technicality, you're just flat out using the wrong word. The word you're looking for is oligopoly, you fucking idiot.

[Anonymous No.16799706]

>>16799691
>technology law expert Tim Wu
Who the fuck is he to comment on business?

[Anonymous No.16799716]

>>16799703
>oligopoly
Oligopoly is a market structure with a small number of firms, none of which can keep the others from having significant influence. The concentration ratio measures the market share of the largest firms. A monopoly is one firm, a duopoly is two firms and an oligopoly is two or more firms.
Monopoly in the case of Microsoft is quite obviously the correct usage as it was one large(the largest) firm. Today however I will grant you It's more about the FANG and oligopoly would be more corret

[Anonymous No.16799729]

>>16799716
There was never at any point in history where Internet Explorer was the only browser to have market share.

[Anonymous No.16799730]

ONLY carry books written in Latin, Greek, or Hebrew. Additionally, incorporate a seed and feed supply, and botanic nursery, for wise old dames and peasants. A small pets (fish/birds/reptiles) store in the vicinity would attract the lithe qts. Any ideas for a store name?
>move aside, hylics, can't you see I'm off to my favorite shop?

[Anonymous No.16799734]

>>16797053
This picture is making me rethink the somewhat fond feelings i have towards suits. It might finally be time for male fashion to move beyond.

[Anonymous No.16799754]

Being actually open would be nice. The other day I drove 100 miles to the state capitol to check out some bookstores and go to the art museum, and both bookstores were appointment only to browse. That's unreasonable in my opinion.

Other than that, actually curating the selection is pretty important for used bookstores. You have to keep actually good books on the shelves and get rid of crap that doesn't sell. If you can't bear to throw away 600 lbs of decades old romance novels, scan them, upload them into an online inventory tool, put them on ebay by series, box them up, and put them in a back room so you have more shelf space for actual sellers.

[Anonymous No.16799756]

>>16799730
>latin greek and hebrew books only
Jesus christ might literally be your only customer.

[Anonymous No.16799767]

>>16799730
sneed

[Anonymous No.16799774]

>>16799756
problem?

[Anonymous No.16799803]

>>16795927
money is power but not absolutely. The medicis were still ignored by nobles who simply refused to pay their loans.

[Anonymous No.16799809]

>>16799700
>Much like they did to oil and railways barons in the 19th century

Different political factions were allied to different business ventures. What you understand to be government attacking oil and rail oligarchs is nothing other than politicians of one faction attacking businessmen belonging to a different faction. In the end, no space was made for new comers. It was vested interests all the way down, with businesses protected by the reigning political faction taking the biggest piece of the pie.

[Anonymous No.16799816]

>>16798371
There is no feasible way for a small bookstore to compete against amazon, except on the 'were not amazon' front.

[Anonymous No.16799832]

>>16799303
>the newer competition fails because amazon is providing a superior service
which a small business cannot possibly compete. Thus, if it's not a monopoly (and it is on some fronts) it will become one. A monopoly doesn't have to be a complete 100% control of the market.

[Anonymous No.16799833]

>>16799730
>Any ideas for a store name?

'Serit Arbores' for obvious reasons

[Anonymous No.16799850]

>>16799734
>It might finally be time for male fashion to move beyond.

The time for Byzantine fashions to return is nigh.

[Anonymous No.16799851]

>>16799816
So? What is inherently virtuous about small business that we need to protect and prop it up against market forces?

[Anonymous No.16799862]

>>16799832
At one point Amazon was a small business competing against titans. So was Facebook and Google.

[Anonymous No.16799870]

>>16795161
>How should bookstores evolve to meet the challenges of our age?

They should become piratical ventures that operate illicit printing machines. They could print out-of-print titles and bootleg copies of the hard to find or expensive--all without legal right.

[Anonymous No.16799874]

>>16795164
The bookstore is literally the only place to find a gf outside of temple/church/mosque.

[Anonymous No.16799882]

>>16799833
>Serit Arbores
Yes. The connection between ancient heirloom seeds past through the generations and ancient classical texts would make quite the fit

[Anonymous No.16799885]

>>16799851
>prop it up against market forces?
You're not propping them up, you're giving the smaller saplings the chance to catch some sunlight by trimming some branches from the largest tree who is taking up all the sunlight.

[Anonymous No.16799904]

>>16799885

In nature, the little animals don't need help to survive. Commerce is like that too. The little guys find niches, or go really fast.

[Anonymous No.16799926]

>>16799885
If you're punishing businesses for being too successful or for offering products and services at lower cost than competitors, then you are literally propping up inferior competition. Is somebody is really good at offering a service, then why do other people who are less capable of offering that service need to exist?

[Anonymous No.16799964]

>>16799691
>clickbait man shares my dum opinion haha I btfo u

And he doesn't even address your stupid claim about social media, which didn't exist yet.

Microsoft had nothing to do with search either. Bing was launched almost decade after Google.

[Anonymous No.16799973]

>>16799926
>Is somebody is really good at offering a service
Because of stagnation. A company that is too large and entrenched has no need to innovate. If you let it go for too long, you will have a company that everyone is relying on, that is providing bad service, and that there are no alternatives because you never stimulated it. Just look at the US ISP market. You have 4-1 largest providers that users always complain about. Whereas in Europe in some countries there are literally 40 or 50 companies competing for that and they have better quality internet to show for it.

[Anonymous No.16799976]

>>16795161
Women don't actually read literature.

[Anonymous No.16799978]

>>16799850
I think those belonged to wizards, anon.

[Anonymous No.16800124]

>>16799365
Books written by black men here. Books written by black women there. Books written by wh*te women over there. And the books written by wh*te men... way back there.

[Anonymous No.16800129]

>>16799973
The ISP market exists as it does because the government restricts competition. It doesn't let jsut anyone lay cable and become an ISP so this is not comparable to Amazon. Anyone can start up a new online marketplace and do what Amazon does at any time. If they refuse to improve or innovate then they will be eclipsed by newer competition who will. This is how Amazon got to where it is right now, they were a small business and realized consumer desire for an online marketplace when the already large existing retailers refused to do so. Those large retailers are no longer large.

[Anonymous No.16800145]

>>16799862
What titans? Brick and mortar bookstores that were slow to adopt the internet?

[Anonymous No.16800195]

>>16800145
Amazon effectively destroyed Sears who was probably in the best position to do what Amazon currently does. They had a very large customer base with their retail catalog.

[Anonymous No.16800216]

>>16795161

[Anonymous No.16800218]

>>16800145
>>16800195
Its actually kind of funny because 20 years ago people used to talk about Sears exactly the same way they talk about Amazon now. How it's destroying small business and innovation. Idiots never learn.

[Anonymous No.16800311]

>>16795161
Free snowcones

[Anonymous No.16800471]

>>16795161
They should evolve into ashes
Bookstores these days barely even carry Tolstoy or any other classic anymore. It's all Fantasy YA Copy pasta with the same GoT book covers

[Anonymous No.16800687]

>>16795161
Turn it into a trendy coffee shop.

[Anonymous No.16801227]

>>16800218
The internet is a once in a millennium invention and is the pinnacle of the achievements of the human race. A handful of companies control the internet. Comparing Sears to Amazon is a false equivalency.

[Anonymous No.16801397]

>>16801227
The hot air balloon is the pinnacle of flight technology. There is no reason for anything new to develop to help us travel the skies.

[Anonymous No.16801469]

>>16801397
You're making assumptions that the Internet will become obsolete soon, even though there is nothing indicating that. The closest we have is blockchain which is why I'm heavily invested in LINK, but even that is a stretch. But sure, if you want to spend at a minimum your entire lifetime under the rule of Lord Bezos and Count Zuckerberg, then be my guest.

[Anonymous No.16801477]

>>16801469
No, I'm pointing out how ridiculous your assumption that the internet is the pinnacle of communication technology is. As if nothing new will ever develop.

[Anonymous No.16801538]

>>16795161
Free popcorn, on exit though because buttery fingertips.

[Anonymous No.16801552]

>>16799734
That's just tacky american suits

You need a well tailored suit from Europe

[Anonymous No.16801573]

>>16801552
What brand suits are they wearing?

[Anonymous No.16801604]

>>16801573
>brand

I'm sorry anon

[Anonymous No.16801738]

>>16801604
Since you think these Americans are wearing custom made suits that aren't associated with a brand, who made them?

[Anonymous No.16801993]

>>16795161
Stop selling books for like 40% more of the price I could order it off Amazon for

[Anonymous No.16802048]

>>16800687
Tea works too!

[Anonymous No.16802089]

>>16801738
U in the market for a tailor?

[Anonymous No.16802200]

>>16802089
I'm trying to figure out how you know the suits come from America.

[Anonymous No.16802255]

>>16795161
Who-ba?