Am I really such a Bad Person?

[anghara]

I've been having an argument over on rasfc about the merits and the morality of wandering into your lcoal bookstore and, if you find your book shelved spine-out, turning it face-out for a potential buyer to see. As I pointed out somewhere in the thread, in my specific case it was my books shelved spine out next to a veritable avalanche of "

Comments

You're missing the point still.

[seawasp]

The point is very simple

Re: You're missing the point still.

[anghara]

As far as points are concerned, I think you just made mine for me:

Which means that FOR THE BOOKSTORE, a faceout of Stephen King, Dave Weber, Eric Flint, etc., is worth 10 or 20 books' worth of profit in the same timeframe that a faceout of Less Known Author is worth 1 or 2 books.

Sure, FOR YOU it's a really great deal. For Dave Weber, another 10 or 20 books sold isn't a major issue. But FOR THE BOOKSTORE it's a direct, clear impact on the bottom line.
...My point being, that King, Weber, Flint et al. will have sold a certain number of books ANYWAY during a certain time period. My books, or books by any other midlist author you care to name, may not have done

Re: You're missing the point still.

[seawasp]

NO ONE was arguing that FOR YOU it was a potentially moneymaking tactic.

But for the BOOKSTORE -- whose property you are fiddling -- the numbers above show it's a money LOSING proposition; they could face out Mr. Weber, and make $10x profit, or face out you, and make x profit.

The objection comes from you putting yourself in the position of choosing how the bookstore chooses to make its money, and to some extent how much it actually makes.

Re: You're missing the point still.

[anghara]

Okay, so riddle me this, then

Re: You're missing the point still.

[seawasp]

Okay, so riddle me this, then.

No. Because it's not relevant to the discussion. I *only* brought money into it because you did

Re: You're missing the point still.

[swan_tower]

But that argument only holds force for me if the bookstore in question has a clear policy about facing out certain kinds of authors in order to maximize profit. So far I've yet to see much evidence of that; in my experience, and in the experience of people who have responded to me about it, employees are left to their own devices about it, and face out based on effective use of shelf space (and, no doubt, their own personal desire to promote certain authors).

Re: You're missing the point still.

[seawasp]

Again, I only brought up the monetary argument because that question was brought up both here and on r.a.sf.c. The fact that there's a potential monetary impact is just a secondary point.

To me, the argument is trivially simple: it isn't your store, it isn't your decision, it isn't your right. I don't have the right to tell you how to arrange stuff in your house or your store, and you don't have the right to do so to me.

You have every right to REQUEST such changes, and in my experience a nice polite introduction and discussion usually works very well.

Re: You're missing the point still.

[eneit]

as a reader, and regular customer and supporter of my local bookstores, I often go in and rearrange their bookshelves so my favourite authors, including anghara, are face out. I even tell them what I am doing. I've noticed that more and more often they are realising this promotion of the newer authors is beneficial to all, so I am having to do less and less rearranging. It also helps them if they aren't particularly interested in genre, to have that kind of reader reccomendation, to pas on to people who ask them what they'd reccomend to read

Re: You're missing the point still.

[seawasp]

You don't need to apologize. I have no power over you or anyone else, really.

But it is a wrong thing to do, in my view, and the more so because it's trivially easy to do right. But it's a LITTLE wrong and not worth great posturing over.

Re: You're missing the point still.

[anghara]

Oh yeah, and one more thing -

...But for the BOOKSTORE -- whose property you are fiddling ...

The entire idea is that this is NOT, in fact, the bookstore's porperty. The idea is that these are things in transit, with the bookstore providing a place where a transaction takes place between author and publisher on the one side and reader on the other. The whole idea of "returnables" go against the grain of "the bookstore's property".

You are thus not, in point fo fact, dealing with anybody's "property" - just smoothing a path for a particular transaction to take place.

Re: You're missing the point still.

[seawasp]

I hope this isn't going into hostility territory (I don't, unlike some of the RASFC crowd whose initials might be DF and MA, want to turn this into a fire-filled argument).

But to me, it IS the bookstore's property. They pay for it. If it's damaged, they are responsible. If it's lost, they are responsible. I've seen the bills. There is no difference from my point of view.

Also, the shelves ARE their property. And thus what gets put there, and how, is their right and responsibility to decide.

Re: You're missing the point still.

[anghara]

It isn't, at least not from my end - myself not being either DF or MA (whom, if you mean the guy I think you mean, I've had killfiled for at least a year now anyway, and because of the very reasons you put forward - the relentless *hostility*) However, just as a last comment on this particular angle of the thread -

But to me, it IS the bookstore's property. They pay for it. If it's damaged, they are responsible. If it's lost, they are responsible. I've seen the bills. There is no difference from my point of view.Fair enough, but they STILL dump it back at the publisher when they don't like it any more. It's a system, and the books are in system, like foster kids - you might be responsible for a foster child and its bills, but in the end it isn't YOUR kid, it isn't even adopted, and you can throw it back in the system - which happens rather more often than anyone might like to think. The bookstore is responsible for the wellbeing of the books while in their custody - they are caretakers, not owners. If they bought the books outright

Re: You're missing the point still.

[brownnicky]

I haven't worked in bookshops but I've worked in other kinds of shops.

Customers screw everything up - all the clothes looked lovely on the right
rails, ordered neatly by size and then those bastards come in, throw stuff on the floor, put things back on the wrong hanger, leave stuff in the changing room - and when they buy stuff it leaves gaps. Bras are the worst.
have you any idea how long it takes to get them on a hanger? And
don't get me on the folded colour co ordinated sweater scenario. It takes
half an hour to get them beautiful - one customer comes and you have to start all over. It's outrageous! Ban customers I say. Dirty, messy things.

I don't think they should be allowed in.

Re: You're missing the point still.

[seawasp]

Oh, gods yes. The customers are the problem. Always.

Unfortunately the managers insist on letting the bastards in.