Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   Publishers gone direct

   

   Mark, Dec 20th, 2004 @ 2:59pm

   
   

   Now obviously Random House could make a lot of money on this and prove me wrong, but I think a book publisher is exactly the sort of business that should not try to sell direct to the public. If I want to buy a book, I think of author, and genre, and sometimes title -- but I *never* think to myself, "Hey -- I'd like to buy a Random House book today!" The publisher is meaningless to my buying decision. So assuming most people are like me, the only people who would use this direct retail channel are people who are already browsing the publisher's site and realize that they can buy something there. They'll get some impulse sales that way, but it doesn't sound like a very high-volume opportunity.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   Pot and kettle

   

   Bob, Dec 20th, 2004 @ 6:54pm

   
   

   While I guess I can understand B&N being unhappy with Random House, it's also the case that B&N has a "house imprint" that they have stocked - making them in effect a publisher.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment