Kinda bitter sign outside a closing Borders Store

[wyndslash]

cute sign ;3

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by wyndslash

cute sign ;3

interesting interpretation of "cute"

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Nyssa

Oh, I get their point, I'm just saying someone could be offended by it, and choose to "boycott", on principle. I know - I have one in my extended family. She can be a little boycott crazy at times.

Well, fortunately for her she won't have to worry about boycotting Borders stores for long.

[Nyssa]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

Well, fortunately for her she won't have to worry about boycotting Borders stores for long.

It is a shame they're going out of business. I was sadder though when they bought Walden Books. Walden was my home away from home, once upon a time. After I lost them I went to B&N.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

I know the staff at our local Borders blamed the rent

The Borders in Pico Rivera, California didn't have *that* excuse:
http://www.whittierdailynews.com/news/ci_17652157

Still didn't help.

[SolRaven]

Personally, I've never been impressed w/ Borders. They always seem a little disorganized. I didn't walk into Borders and feel like staying. I walked into Borders, picked up a book that I was already looking for, then left. B&N could keep me in there for hours and so could Walden, but never Borders.

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

The Borders in Pico Rivera, California didn't have *that* excuse:
http://www.whittierdailynews.com/news/ci_17652157

Still didn't help.

Their monthly lease combined:

$33,932.91 a month

And yet ...

The rent being paid by Borders was below the market value rate for the site, ...

[Worldwalker]

Bookstores don't bring in the same dollars per square foot that, say, mall clothing stores do. Not even close. Look at, say, your typical Old Navy. They have more customers than your typical Border's, and a much higher ticket average (does Old Navy even sell anything that costs as little as a book?), in a fraction of the space.

That's the problem with "market value" ... high-margin clothing stores can afford it, bookstores can't. In fact, if you look at defunct chains over the past ten or fifteen years ... CompUSA ... Kitchen Etc. ... Circuit City ... Linens 'n Things ... Ames ... Lechmere ... Discovery Channel Store ... Nature Company ... and nearly every bookstore known to humanity ... pretty much all of them cited rent as a major reason for folding. Obviously bad management was a factor, too. Phil Schoonover, anyone? But rent was nonetheless a major factor. Even electronics stores, while the sales look big, the margins were thin -- the profit on a big-screen TV can be smaller than on the cable to hook it up. Their real estate killed them.

Every time I drive by an empty building that formerly held a big store, I have to wonder ... is the landlord really making "market rates" from that empty building, the one he's paying heat and light and security on and getting no rent from? I'm inclined to doubt it. I think there are a lot of landlords who look at what an Abercrombie & Fitch in a fancy mall pays per foot and thinks they can get that from Borders or Linens 'n Things, too, because a store is a store, right? And what they get is an empty building bringing in zero.

"Market rates" aren't "market" if the market can't afford them. If retailers have no wiggle room for a down economy, shaky management, market shifts, or other factors without the rent killing them, then they can't afford the rent, even if they're managing to pay it at the moment.

[khalleron]

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

Bookstores don't bring in the same dollars per square foot that, say, mall clothing stores do. Not even close. Look at, say, your typical Old Navy. They have more customers than your typical Border's, and a much higher ticket average (does Old Navy even sell anything that costs as little as a book?), in a fraction of the space.

That's the problem with "market value" ... high-margin clothing stores can afford it, bookstores can't. In fact, if you look at defunct chains over the past ten or fifteen years ... CompUSA ... Kitchen Etc. ... Circuit City ... Linens 'n Things ... Ames ... Lechmere ... Discovery Channel Store ... Nature Company ... and nearly every bookstore known to humanity ... pretty much all of them cited rent as a major reason for folding. Obviously bad management was a factor, too. Phil Schoonover, anyone? But rent was nonetheless a major factor. Even electronics stores, while the sales look big, the margins were thin -- the profit on a big-screen TV can be smaller than on the cable to hook it up. Their real estate killed them.

Every time I drive by an empty building that formerly held a big store, I have to wonder ... is the landlord really making "market rates" from that empty building, the one he's paying heat and light and security on and getting no rent from? I'm inclined to doubt it. I think there are a lot of landlords who look at what an Abercrombie & Fitch in a fancy mall pays per foot and thinks they can get that from Borders or Linens 'n Things, too, because a store is a store, right? And what they get is an empty building bringing in zero.

"Market rates" aren't "market" if the market can't afford them. If retailers have no wiggle room for a down economy, shaky management, market shifts, or other factors without the rent killing them, then they can't afford the rent, even if they're managing to pay it at the moment.

I think you're describing The Shoe Event Horizon.

[KenJackson]

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

Every time I drive by an empty building that formerly held a big store, I have to wonder ... is the landlord really making "market rates" from that empty building, the one he's paying heat and light and security on and getting no rent from? ...

The empty building makes me wonder if corporate taxes had been just 1% lower, would that have been enough to keep the store profitable, selling its goods, employing its people, paying its rent and paying some tax instead of none.

[elizilla]

Originally Posted by khalleron

Borders and B&N drove thousands of small booksellers out of business, now it's their turn.

Borders *is* my local small bookseller. I've been shopping in their store since there was only one of them, and I know many people who have worked there over the years. I was pretty startled when they became a chain, and I will be sad if they disappear. They have only closed one of their stores here in town - the small one. I hope the others survive, especially the flagship store downtown in the old Jacobson's building.

[HansTWN]

That is life -- the same thing happened when photos move from film to digital, typewriters became extinct, blockbuster went belly up, etc. The list is endless --- you can't stop the better business model and new technology.

Why blame Amazon? That just took advantage of a new opportunity.

[SolRaven]

Originally Posted by elizilla

Borders *is* my local small bookseller. I've been shopping in their store since there was only one of them, and I know many people who have worked there over the years. I was pretty startled when they became a chain, and I will be sad if they disappear. They have only closed one of their stores here in town - the small one. I hope the others survive, especially the flagship store downtown in the old Jacobson's building.

I was in that Border's last August and was surprised to find out that it's their #1 store. It was quiet and empty, even though the streets were not. I remember I had a great time walking around downtown and finally checking out a Moosejaw, where I've been ordering from online for years, but when I was in Borders, I checked out the Kobo which was displayed near the front door, but after I went to check out the rest of the store, I felt like leaving.

I can't explain it, there is something about the energy in Borders that makes me feel tired. I'm sure it's a feng shui thing because I don't get that at all when I'm in B&N stores. It could be the low book cases; I always thought that was an odd use of retail space.

[SolRaven]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

That is life -- the same thing happened when photos move from film to digital, typewriters became extinct, blockbuster went belly up, etc. The list is endless --- you can't stop the better business model and new technology.

Why blame Amazon? That just took advantage of a new opportunity.

B&N and Borders should have come on board a LONG time ago. Amazon was barely known when B&N and Border were busy ruling the roost and driving out smaller shops like Walden's.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

Bookstores don't bring in the same dollars per square foot that, say, mall clothing stores do. Not even close. Look at, say, your typical Old Navy. They have more customers than your typical Border's, and a much higher ticket average (does Old Navy even sell anything that costs as little as a book?), in a fraction of the space...

A visit in a major mall these days indicates that this is indeed endemic to the entire storefront industry: The problem is with the real estate itself, refusing to come to grips with the malaise that is gripping every other industry, jacking up their prices to make up for their thinner profit margins, and thereby driving low-margin sellers out. Only the stores with the highest profit margins can afford the spaces, and those with lesser sales come and go as fast as the seasons change.

Major retail bookstores, of course, have gotten used to big buildings and big displays over the years... but they haven't taken advantage of the digital market to do the one thing that would've kept them on-site: Downsizing. Fewer, more clever displays, combined with the sales of digital products that take up no space, would allow the stores to shrink with the financial times but not go away. A borders could fit into a small- to medium-sized storefront, not take up a block.

And still have room for bathrooms.