The Amazon Conundrum

I've got an idea.

What if independent brick-and-mortar bookstores charged an entry fee -- say, a dollar -- and used the proceeds to enable them to level the playing field with online retailers in terms of pricing?

What if independent music and record stores did the same thing?

What if every retailer that sells something that could be had for less on the Internet did it too?

While browsing at The Strand last night, and I found a newly published book I wanted to read. It was marked 10 percent off the retail price of $29.95. Engaging in a common, if somewhat undignified, modern ritual, I pulled out my smartphone and checked to see what it would cost to buy it online at Amazon. I happen to despise Amazon but, times being what they are, I wanted to see what my options were.

Amazon lists the book, brand new, for $16.45.

And so ensued the ethical debate: support The Strand and pay a whopping $10 more for the book, or save the $10 and order the same book online, further hastening the imminent demise of great bookstores like the very one I was standing in?

It seems like a no-win situation. As much as I love The Strand and all it stands for, that's a huge margin of difference in price ... and that's only one book. Let's say I bought five or six books (not uncommon for me -- The Strand is a dangerous place), and let's say the same price differential applied, on average. Using this calculation, I could spend $135.00 at The Strand, or I could spend $67.50 for the same books online. Do the math.

So, am I (are you? are we all?) expected to subsidize the small, independent little guy simply because we know it's the proper thing to do? I'm on board with this in principle, and perhaps if one of my songs got played on Grey's Anatomy I would, without question. But, like most of the 99 percent, I'm mindful of my finances. Paying a third more for exactly the same product seems, well, unsustainable. This is not news. It's why bookstores and record shops and other Old Media outlets are disappearing faster than you can say "landline."

I want The Strand to have my money. I really do. I'm willing to give them a little more than I'd spend online. Just because. I think that they deserve for the service they offer me by having a physical store to browse in. That's absolutely worth something to me.

So, here's my idea. Monetize what is now a free service. Let Old Media stores charge admission. A buck. Wouldn't you pay a buck to browse in The Strand for as long as you like? I would. For a buck, you have access to their entire inventory. You can pick the books up, look at them, feel them in your hand, read a page or two. You can talk to the knowledgeable staff, ask their opinion, shoot the breeze. For a buck, you can be physically surrounded by the greatest words ever composed from the greatest minds from all corners of the world. And the best part? You're not obligated to buy anything while you're in there. But if you DO, it will be priced competitively with online retailers, because we all agreed to pay a buck for the privilege.

Wouldn't this be a great way to give those suckers (Amazon, et al.) some pause, even a run for their money?

I don't know the economics, so this may be a naive idea. How many people walk into The Strand every day? A thousand? Two thousand? Would every one of those people contributing a buck provide enough economic cushion to the retailer to allow for quasi-online prices? And what about the little guy with the little shop in the little town in the country, who gets a dozen customers in per day? That owner probably won't be able to compete. But maybe the economics in the little town in the country are different?

All I know is -- I love bookstores. The physical ones. And record stores (where they still exist). I want them to stick around. I always want to be able to go and browse in them, and I'm willing to pay a premium to do it. But an extra 30 percent is asking a lot. Something has to change about that calculus, and soon, I would think.

Give a dollar to get in to The Strand? Absolutely. All day.

Wouldn't you?

* * *
[Full disclosure: I derive income from Amazon; they sell my music. I'd much rather you buy it from me, or from cdbaby, or even iTunes, but if you just must, you can get it there.]

 

 

 

Follow Howard Fishman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/howardfishman

Comments

[Robert Armin]

01:35 AM on 05/30/2012

How quickly has it been forgotten that it wasn't Amazon that destroyed the small bookstores, but the biggest brick and mortar store of them all -- Barnes & Noble. B&N came into New York (and many other cities) offering huge discounts on practically every book in stock and quickly pushed most of the smaller bookshops out of business. Then B&N started eliminating discounts until only the NYTimes bestsellers were available at less than full price. The simple truth is that no bookstore can afford to stock all of the books that interest me (I rarely buy bestsellers), not even B&N. Amazon is making it possible for even tiny booksellers to sell their stock through Amazon and eliminate their overhead. The publishers are simply compensating for Amazon's discounts by raising their wholesale price and "suggested list price." And in answer to the original posting, I've never shopped at The Strand for a new book. That's where I go for used books and "review copies."

[roger stillick]

05:07 PM on 05/04/2012

Howard fisherman=You still have not figured out Amazon, they do an online mail order business, Sure...
What they have copyrighted is a country wide computerized inventory partership with any store selling what Amazon does... each store is free to set item price and way of shipping... each store does not get paid until item ships... this allows the wildly different prices on Amazon...
Barnes and Noble and other store / Publishing houses are patently stupid for not partnering with Amazon... they can only win... Powell Books of Portland, one of the country's biggest bookstores partners with Amazon, they both win...
Only stubborn pride prevents a successful partnership...IMHO

[Embolden]

12:33 PM on 05/02/2012

Why is sustaining the brick and mortar bookstores "the right thing to do"?

I agree that it would be nice to have them, but if they are unsustainable in their current form, then we will adjust to progress. We always have and we always will.

[atcole]

12:55 PM on 05/02/2012

Why sustain brick and mortar stores? Because we derive great enjoyment from spending time in them. We enjoy searching the shelves for new books, magazines and music instead of looking for items on a computer screen. We enjoy being able to actually sit down, read (or listen) any passage at random to decide if we want to buy. That experience has value to us. Howard's idea on how to monetize it is an interesting one.