Well, I have been busy; Busy working, renovating and writing of other kinds. But not writing on my blog, obviously. Have no fear, however! You will be ecstatic to know I have saved up my list of annoyances and things that make me want to move to Mars. I think I’ll start with this little gem. Protectionism.
Is it Lunacy? Is it the federal government's fault book stores are closing?
We lovers of reading and writing in Australia have heard of the recent demise of Borders and Angus & Robertson book store giants. Both owned by the same parent company, Redgroup Retail was put into voluntary administration by private equity owners Pacific Equity Partners on February 17, and as of April has closed 49 of its 231 company-owned stores.
Since then there have been enormous sales on books. Seems counter-intuitive, when some stores are remaining open.
During the kerfuffle of the announcement in February, I read an article online at The Australian titled 'Lunacy of protectionism writ large', by Bob Carr (premier of NSW 1995-2005 and a member of the Dymocks board).
Read the full article here; http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/lunacy-of-protectionism-writ-large/story-e6frg6zo-1226008423635
Here’s an extract; On Thursday, the country's largest bookstore chain, Angus & Robertson, and Borders bookstores were placed in voluntary administration. They cited this policy [protectionism] as one of the reasons. In other words, to protect 300 jobs in one manufacturing plant, the federal government decision helped cause the loss of 2500 jobs in the retail sector. The old story. Protectionism plugs a gap. But in the end you see a net loss.
By ‘this policy’, Bob Carr is talking about protectionism, and when legislative reforms were narrowly defeated in Federal Cabinet in 2009.
All due respect Mr Carr, you’re an intelligent man, so you know that the headline is inflammatory, and the story one-sided and perhaps a little opportunistic.
While the company's financial woes aren’t related to those of the US Borders chain, which are run independently, it’s interesting to note they also started closing down sales for 200 Borders book stores in 35 states across the USA after filing for bankruptcy in February.
Since then there have been enormous sales on books. Seems counter-intuitive, when some stores are remaining open.
During the kerfuffle of the announcement in February, I read an article online at The Australian titled 'Lunacy of protectionism writ large', by Bob Carr (premier of NSW 1995-2005 and a member of the Dymocks board).
Read the full article here; http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/lunacy-of-protectionism-writ-large/story-e6frg6zo-1226008423635
Here’s an extract; On Thursday, the country's largest bookstore chain, Angus & Robertson, and Borders bookstores were placed in voluntary administration. They cited this policy [protectionism] as one of the reasons. In other words, to protect 300 jobs in one manufacturing plant, the federal government decision helped cause the loss of 2500 jobs in the retail sector. The old story. Protectionism plugs a gap. But in the end you see a net loss.
By ‘this policy’, Bob Carr is talking about protectionism, and when legislative reforms were narrowly defeated in Federal Cabinet in 2009.
All due respect Mr Carr, you’re an intelligent man, so you know that the headline is inflammatory, and the story one-sided and perhaps a little opportunistic.
While the company's financial woes aren’t related to those of the US Borders chain, which are run independently, it’s interesting to note they also started closing down sales for 200 Borders book stores in 35 states across the USA after filing for bankruptcy in February.
And this was without protectionism.
In fact, back in Australia, when Redgroup announced a full-year loss of $43 million in October 2010, they said it was mainly attributable to non-cash inventory as it completed its integration of Borders. Not to mention retail earnings pressure due to higher interest rates and drop in consumer spending. And there’s the affect of the transition from print to digital products, which has reportedly cost Borders millions in recent years.
Yet, here in this article is a well respected man practically blaming Federal Labor for the loss of 2500 jobs to come from the pending closures of the stores in Australia. All with a loose and dubious connection. I’m a bit giddy from all that SPIN, Bob.
Mr Carr argues that the price of books in Australian bookshops should come down, and protectionism prevents the local bookshop from importing books and selling them at lower prices, thus competing with online retailing.
But my research has shown (and I’m sure some industry specialists could verify or refine this) that bookstores actually end up with up 50% of the RRP of a book, while an author receives as low as 10%.
So perhaps there is room for improvement in the market despite protectionism, Mr Dymocks-Board-Member Carr?
I’m not going to weigh in (at least not here and now) on the debate or the pros and cons of this particular piece of legislation. You may already guess which side of the fence I lay on (emerging Australian authors!). I just thought the connection was dubious as an opinion piece and a bit of a non-story, really. And here's the counter-perspective.
Sorry Bob.
Rach
In fact, back in Australia, when Redgroup announced a full-year loss of $43 million in October 2010, they said it was mainly attributable to non-cash inventory as it completed its integration of Borders. Not to mention retail earnings pressure due to higher interest rates and drop in consumer spending. And there’s the affect of the transition from print to digital products, which has reportedly cost Borders millions in recent years.
Yet, here in this article is a well respected man practically blaming Federal Labor for the loss of 2500 jobs to come from the pending closures of the stores in Australia. All with a loose and dubious connection. I’m a bit giddy from all that SPIN, Bob.
Mr Carr argues that the price of books in Australian bookshops should come down, and protectionism prevents the local bookshop from importing books and selling them at lower prices, thus competing with online retailing.
But my research has shown (and I’m sure some industry specialists could verify or refine this) that bookstores actually end up with up 50% of the RRP of a book, while an author receives as low as 10%.
So perhaps there is room for improvement in the market despite protectionism, Mr Dymocks-Board-Member Carr?
I’m not going to weigh in (at least not here and now) on the debate or the pros and cons of this particular piece of legislation. You may already guess which side of the fence I lay on (emerging Australian authors!). I just thought the connection was dubious as an opinion piece and a bit of a non-story, really. And here's the counter-perspective.
Sorry Bob.
Rach
No comments:
Post a Comment