Bill <palmer.william@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
Allan Adler writes:
>> There is a definite advantage to not having to risk any capital or to
>> have to maintain any kind of storage facility.
>
> Exactly how much "capital" would we be talking about here? If the
library
> in question is anything like the library near where I live, the
"capital"
> would rarely be more than $10, because most of their stuff has an Amazon
> Low Price of a couple of dollars,and therefore would not be worth the
bother.
Well, if the entire "inventory" of the bookseller consists of just the
books
that I happened to see at that local library on that day, then I would
agree that it would be better to invest the capital. But if there are a
lot
of local libraries, as is the case in some places, and if the bookseller
uses the sale books at all of them, then the required investment would be
much more significant, as would the implied storage requirements. Some
local libraries have entire basement rooms with dozens of shelves full of
sale books. One branch alone can have as many sale books as a small
bookstore.
> I would maintain that approach I suggested to valuing books is one worth
> considering. You throw out the fantasy prices [...] You also throw out
the
> suspiciously low prices. Then you average the prices left.
That's a reasonable strategy. I would only point out, regarding the
ridiculously low prices, that they are not necessarily to be disregarded.
I have bought perfectly good books for well under a dollar. I don't know
why they are so cheap. There might be profits from savings on mailing, but
it's also possible that the booksellers with such low prices are trying to
build up their approval ratings as they start up their business and just
need to attract sales at any price, as long as they at least break even.
> I certainly agree that listings for many books on Amazon include fantasy
> prices. Maybe there are a lot of rubes on the net with money to burn
these
> days. Maybe they feel they can get more "culture" from a book with a
wildly
> inflated price tag...
For example, Laplace's Celestial Mechanics was published by Chelsea before
they went out of business. It is a 4 volume translation from French of his
great classic and the used price on Amazon was something like $2000 when
I looked it up some time ago. I think there are people who would consider
it worth it who are not rubes or culture wonks. Some libraries might
conceivably go that high since it is such an im****tant classic and is
otherwise unavailable.
> It was a valid point. What sort of "entrepreneur" is going to risk a
> flock of Amazon lack of fulfillment ratings just because his "capital"
> is not sufficient to allow him to shell out $10 or $20 dollars for a
number
> of books worth many times that amount, judging by the Amazon Low Price?
I agree that a bookseller has an interest in avoiding bad ratings.
However,
there is a statistical rate at which the books tend to disappear and a
statistical rate at which they tend to be ordered. I expect that both are
low.
If the bookseller checks his/her "inventories" much more frequently than
that,
the likelihood of having an unavailable book ordered would also be low.
Even airlines over-"book", based on their statistical likelihood of having
too many passengers show up for a given flight.
> Again, just for fun assuming your suspicions are correct,
Can we use the more neutral term "speculations"?
> the ones doing that are likely the "booksellers" who
[speculation about life style and appearance
of hypothetical bookseller deleted]
Assuming there are some booksellers operating as I have described, it
is quite possible that they are not very successful. It is also possible
that they are making enough money to make it worth their while. One would
really have to study the number of books available, their prices, the
rates
at which they get sold by branch libraries, they rates at which they tend
to
be ordered on Amazon, the savings on storage, the necessary number of
visits
to the library to update the data and do the math before drawing any
reliable
conclusions about the relevant stochastic processes. We haven't done that,
so
it is better to keep an open mind about it.
Next time I see this person, I'll ask them about it. He/she was perfectly
normally dressed, didn't smell bad and probably would have given me a
civil
and articulate answer.
--
Ignorantly,
Allan Adler <a...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
* Disclaimer: I am a guest and *not* a member of the MIT CSAIL. My actions
and
* comments do not reflect in any way on MIT. Also, I am nowhere near
Boston.
|
