Leave a comment

Comments 46

anonymous August 28 2011, 20:35:09 UTC
All true.
But it's all been said a thousand times before in a thousand different ways.
What's the point anymore?

Reply

Whats the point? anonymous August 28 2011, 22:55:55 UTC
I agree. It is pointless. The Borders "brand" has been soiled, and soon it will be in a landfill somewhere.

Reply

UGH. anonymous August 29 2011, 19:17:07 UTC
As well-formatted and articulate as this article is, it's pure Yellow Journalism. Talk about a vulture devouring carrion! This person is a hundred times worse than any of the non-loyal customers currently picking the bones, because his task was to opportunistically increase enmity toward everything about the company. And as 'well within his rights' as he is, it is entirely ethical to condemn a company when there were as many decent competent people involved in its history as bad incompetent ones. Where's the journalistic integrity in turning a blind eye to honoring the art of bookselling or the lasting connections made between good employees and good customers?

Reply

Re: UGH. anonymous August 29 2011, 19:18:22 UTC
self-correction: "entirely UNETHICAL"

Reply


anonymous August 28 2011, 20:43:41 UTC
Boring

Reply


anonymous August 28 2011, 22:53:10 UTC
I agree with most of it, but the author seems like an ass. "Consultants" are a dime a dozen.

Reply

anonymous August 29 2011, 13:21:23 UTC
If, by a dime, you mean hundreds of thousands of dollars, of course.

Reply


ext_686960 August 29 2011, 18:05:55 UTC
I could've shit out a better piece for half of what this guy got being paid per word.

Reply


anonymous August 30 2011, 02:08:53 UTC
That was just some geezer's blog entry.
There is anecdotal support for the finding which that Borders had problems with brand recognition, as well as a common sense explanation for the phenomenon. America is one of the world's biggest countries and national (as opposed to regional) bookstore chains here were really few prior to the expansion of what would become the two largest.
The culprit in the loyalty factor insinuated early in the blog entry can only have been George Jones, if only because we couldn't -- certainly, cannot -- turn back from the reduction in titles carried that he oversaw. What differentiated us from competitors (real or construed) was disputed, he prevailed, and all, ultimately, was lost.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up