|
Author
|
Topic: BarnesandNoble.com (BNBN)
|
JHirsch
|
posted 08-06-1999 09:02 AM
I have to agree with smario here, at this point the keeping of the customer is more important than a small change in profit margin. If they don't do something many of their customers will just move over to amazon.com. If people who never would have used the online store are both using the online store and the brick and mortar store I think Barnes and Noble and BarnesandNoble.com will both be pretty happy with that. They might be losing a little bit of the profit margins, but that's better than losing the sale and the customer. Jake |
smario
|
posted 08-05-1999 12:30 PM
Lee R, I agree with you on just those variables. However the key to this system would be getting people in the stores, even if they buy the book online. Once you get someone in the store to pick up the book, browsing begins, and then you have impulse buying. Currently, they are losing people anyway (people that before went to bookstores) to online opportunities. This way, by integrating online and offline, at least you get people back in (and they are happier with the lower price they got online). Hopefully, in the end, it becomes cost-effective to do so by increased revenues. |
Lee R
|
posted 08-05-1999 11:23 AM
B&N's prices are lower on its site than in its physical stores, because they need to be in order to compete with Amazon. But if B&N enabled you to order your books online and pick them up at the store, a lot of people who currently buy in the store (at the higher prices) would use this service just to save money. Not good for B&N. |
JHirsch
|
posted 08-04-1999 04:27 PM
gatsby, I like the idea you and smario and newinvestor are talking about. I was in an Barnes and Noble store yesterday and there was a sign which seemed to say that they could get any book there for you within 24 hours. If that is true, there seems to be no reason why they couldn't offer you the online prices and then the ability to pick up the book at the brick and mortar store. For books that they have in stock it will be no work at all to gain these sales and market share because the book will already be at the store. Maybe a clerk would bring it to the front of the store as they do with special orders, but that is not too much. Well, that's my idea. Is Barnesandnoble.com listening?  Jake |
gatsby
|
posted 08-04-1999 09:39 AM
Malcolm, the reason I think B&N hasn't lived up to expectations to date (at the risk of sounding repetitive) is because they haven't flaunted their competitive advantage. Rather, they seem like they are trying to copy Amazon. They are not making use of their offline stores at all (which I feel would make the best overall experience for a customer -buy online at better price, go pick it up same day). Rather, they are merely selling books online at nice prices, and have just added music. So why go there when Amazon has the same exact system? That's why there is little excitement. B&N needs to remember why they got so huge in the first place -they created an overall entertaining experience for the customer the minute he/she walked in the door, and translate that online. |
Trader Joe
|
posted 07-22-1999 10:12 AM
Latest numbers: - quarterly revenues of $39.1 million, up 243% from the same quarter last year. - loss of 17 cents per share, vs. expectations of a loss of 24 cents per share.The continued rapid growth is impressive, but profitability is nowhere in sight... on the other hand, they have $486 million in the bank from their IPO, so they might as well use it... |
newinvestor
|
posted 07-20-1999 03:27 PM
smario, I actually don't know how much they are losing on each sale. I also like the idea of being able to pick up the book that day at the store. The only problem is, they'll have the exact same inventory issues that they have now... a brick and mortar bookseller just can't have the same breadth of inventory as an Amazon. I could easily see overnight delivery to their stores from a central warehouse and then pickup by the customer. That would be a good niche for them. |
smario
|
posted 07-20-1999 10:11 AM
newinvestor, are they really losing money on each sale? Also, I agree with gatsby's (earlier) strategy. Rather than try to copy Amazon's strategy to gain market share, I really think they should utilize the connection with the offline stores, to make it a real easy shopping experience for the customer. My own preference would be to buy it online for the better price, and then go to the store on the same day to pick it up. |
gatsby
|
posted 07-16-1999 04:14 PM
The Better Business Bureau has told B&N.com to stop publishing their slogan on their website, as it officially has been found to be misleading to customers. The slogan states: "If we don't have your book nobody does." The definitive message drew fire from the American Booksellers Association, which filed a complaint against Barnesandnoble.com last December with the BBB's National Advertising Division. The complaint alleged that the slogan is inaccurate, and cited research that found 22 books on other sites that were not on B&N's site. Despite the ruling, B&N.com is still using the slogan on the site, saying they need to 'phase it out', riling ABA chairman Richard Howorth. Wait to see what happens next...it's all about enforcement people, not just a decision! |
JHirsch
|
posted 07-15-1999 02:55 PM
In response to a thread eagle and techwatcher were having a while back... about Varsitybooks.com I would say that barnes and noble.com could very easily get into agreements with schools that allow students (and encourage students) to purchase their books through b&n's website. The customization possiblities are amazing, for each school and each course list. The prices would be good (campus bookstore prices are crazy!) and books would hopefully already be in stock. I think B&N or possibly amazon or borders could do well at this if they wanted to because a lot of books used in classes they would already have and don't have to make their own relationships with suppliers like varsitybooks.com (which has not that big of a collection although it is improving)Jake |
newinvestor
|
posted 07-15-1999 02:12 PM
smario, I saw jewel in concert with about 100 people, and that was almost 4 years ago... although i like her music, sadly, she has been selling out ever since. Anyway, i think that Barnes and Noble's new viral marketing idea seems pretty strange, especially considering they are already losing so much on each sale. I can't really fault them for going for market share, but they (and amazon) seem to be digging themselves such a deep hole losing money they may not be able to get out...
|
MaxPower
|
posted 07-08-1999 10:02 AM
gatsby, just came across this: "Barnes & Noble employees and board members bought about 4.5 million shares, or 16% of the stock sold through the IPO, with Chairman and CEO Leonard Riggio taking roughly half of that position." I don't know if that equates with "the whole company", as you said, but I hope this info helps. |
smario
|
posted 07-07-1999 04:57 PM
Bill, barnesandnoble.com was up as much as 7/8 today, or 5.1%, to 17 15/16, however it settled for an increase up .44. You could say it was the news of the opening of its online music store today, or more specifically, the fact that they celebrated this news by offering a free download of Jewel's "Deep Water." Yeah, Jewel...you've finally gone corporate in a big way!  |
gatsby
|
posted 07-07-1999 10:14 AM
I remain surprised that B&N on and offline don't work together to leverage their competitive advantage - the fact that people can integrate their on and offline shpping through one store (ordering online, picking it up at the local store, checking inventory, etc.). I am wondering if the CDs offered online will be an online specific product, or if they will be offered in stores as well. Does anyone know how much of a stake the offline store has in its new spinoff? Would it even be feasible to integrate operations? |
Bill Tarr
|
posted 07-07-1999 09:35 AM
BNBN is going to announce the opening of an online CD store today. It will be interesting to see what the stock does... |