advertisement
advertisement

Barnes & Noble Founder: It’s The Stores, Stupid

Written by Frank Hayes
February 26th, 2013

One of the delicious ironies of merged-channel retail is how easy it is to lose track of the real business. When Barnes & Noble (NYSE:BKS) Chairman Leonard Riggio said on Monday (Feb. 25) that he wants to buy the chain’s regular bookstores and E-Commerce operation, everyone suddenly took another look at what was presumed to be a dying brick-and-mortar business. Surprise! The stores are profitable. It’s the Nook that’s been bleeding the retailer dry.

The Nook was supposed to be merged-channel perfected: Buy anywhere, instant delivery, no distribution centers required. The physical stores were expected to be steamrolled by Amazon (NASDAQ:AMZN). Instead, Amazon has crushed the Nook, while B&N’s stores (with no more competition from Borders) are hanging on. Welcome to Merged Channel 2.0—or possibly Merged Channel II: The Showroom Strikes Back.

Riggio, who bought the lone Manhattan Barnes & Noble store in 1971 and adopted its name for his company, said in a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filing that his proposed purchase “would include, among other things, Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. and barnesandnoble.com; and would exclude NOOK Media LLC (comprising the digital and College businesses).” At this point, there’s nothing else specific about the deal; price, timing and all the details are to be negotiated.

But what is clear, even with the E-Commerce site thrown into the deal, is that this is a bet on the stores. In the age of showrooming, that seems all wrong. Any customer can walk into a B&N store, find a book she wants and promptly buy it from Amazon. It’s Best Buy (NYSE:BBY), with lower shipping costs. What is Riggio thinking?

In fact, it seems that the executive Riggio hired to take the chain into digital media in 2009, William Lynch, felt the same way about the showroom stores and all but abandoned them and even the chain’s old corporate headquarters. Lynch and several other executives (including the CFO) work out of the chain’s dot-com headquarters a mile from the corporate offices, according to the Wall Street Journal.

For a merged-channel strategy, that’s disastrous. Even for a simpler multi-channel approach, it’s catastrophic to focus on a single channel—digital in this case—and forget all the advantages of other channels. In the case of brick-and-mortar stores, the biggest advantage is the one thing many chains most fear: the store as showroom.

Let’s be clear: B&N hasn’t ignored its stores.


advertisement

Comments are closed.

Newsletters

StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!
advertisement

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

StorefrontBacktalk
Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.