2 ms·
I skipped over those because I think they're totally irrelevant. See the "rearranging deck chairs on Titanic" part of my comment. Yeah, they could have managed
by ryanwaggoner 9y ago
I skipped over those because I think they're totally irrelevant. See the "rearranging deck chairs on Titanic" part of my comment.
Yeah, they could have managed the holiday season better. They could have a better strategy for ecommerce. So what? It doesn't fundamentally change anything. It maybe delays the inevitable for a year or two? But in the end, B&N is almost certainly going out of business.
EDIT: I guess there are two other possibilities:
1. B&N finds another B&M strategy that works beyond just selling books. But it's not clear what, given their financial situation, existing stores, employee base, etc. Either way, lots of layoffs between here and there.
2. They pivot to selling books online solely. This actually seems likely, at least for awhile, because it's a decent brand, and they're already doing this, so this would just mean shutting down all their stores. But all these employees are still losing their jobs in that scenario.
- cowpig 9y agoWell, the deckchairs could be rearranged on the titanic to make room for the women and children getting on lifeboats. In American Capitalism, we prefer arrange them into a large pile for the captain to climb up on top of so he direct the drowning of the women and children as he waits for the private helicopter to warm up.
- b1daly 9y agoYour contention implies that there are no differences of import to how a company is managed, if business failure is inevitable. Sadly, I think this is not that rare of an opinion amongst a certain class of managers who disproportionately consider their own welfare, above all. You don’t have to think that hard to realize the callous absurdity of this viewpoint.