CCBC-Net Archives
Re: Supply & Demand & Forecasting
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
From: Norma Jean Sawicki <nsawicki_at_nyc.rr.com>
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2014 20:03:52 -0500
Christine…
Your lens is not the only lens through which one sees the issues discussed this month nor should it be. The following was unnecessary, and unfortunate…Norma Jean
On Mar 2, 2014, at 7:34 PM, Christine Taylor-Butler wrote:
> Charles,
>
> I am curious, after re-reading some of your posts, if you are currently working on a project for a corporate client. Your conclusions certainly seem skewed in that direction.
>
> I also wonder if you could stop labeling all the professionals on this list (there are more than 2,000 of them) as if they are a homogeneous in terms of employment or motive. That clearly has not been the case Nor is it valid to continue to imply those who are aren't a source of significant revenue.
>
> I also noted that you included - in poor taste - the concept of institutional buyers acquiring books to make them available to readers "for free." While I know you'll say I misinterpreted the statement, I've worked with consultants long enough to know nothing is without meaning. But I would also suggest that despite small budgets, schools and libraries are actually major players in introducing books to children. More effective, often, than bookstores because of the length of their exposure to them (often daily).
>
> And even if the list were solely institutional (again - it is not) we are all, in the end, retail consumers - many of us expressing frustration with lack of content that meets our needs, or clients needs or our own children's needs.. I am often tickled when I am criticized for not "liking" what some publisher picked out for me. I don't know what other industry thrives on that assumption. Certainly my former employer is learning that hard lesson now, and one prior to that is now bankrupt. Interestingly enough, all of us should be more in tune with what publishers have produced. The fact that we are not speaks to poor visibility. If we don't know about it and share the data on this list - then how on earth does a consumer not tapped in to the network or a reader of trade publications know about it?
>
> As for supply and demand this is more about ELASTICITY of demand. I would posit that with the demographics of children being born in the U.S. shifting away from dominant culture and with the media (publishers, etc.) continuing to act as if it isn't - there is significant DISCONNECT in what publisher's models are achieving. You often conclude there are no sales because there are no buyers. I would conclude that publishers set up a poor model decades ago and have failed to adequately compensate for it. At some point their primary buyer will become the minority in this country and ethnic buyers will simply spend their economic clout on competitive products.
>
> One need only look at the slim margins, the consolidations and the bankruptcies to see that asking a publisher to explain the disconnect arising from their "rigorous" sales forecasting is specious at best.
>
> Most successful consultants poll the end-users about their preferences and buying patterns. They ask THEM what the disconnect is between publisher assumptions and consumer needs. They don't put them in a box and condemn them for not being profitable because they don't like the product and won't spend their money on it.
>
> Marketing lesson over. But frankly - that's B-school first year stuff……Christine
>
>
>
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2014 20:03:52 -0500
Christine…
Your lens is not the only lens through which one sees the issues discussed this month nor should it be. The following was unnecessary, and unfortunate…Norma Jean
On Mar 2, 2014, at 7:34 PM, Christine Taylor-Butler wrote:
> Charles,
>
> I am curious, after re-reading some of your posts, if you are currently working on a project for a corporate client. Your conclusions certainly seem skewed in that direction.
>
> I also wonder if you could stop labeling all the professionals on this list (there are more than 2,000 of them) as if they are a homogeneous in terms of employment or motive. That clearly has not been the case Nor is it valid to continue to imply those who are aren't a source of significant revenue.
>
> I also noted that you included - in poor taste - the concept of institutional buyers acquiring books to make them available to readers "for free." While I know you'll say I misinterpreted the statement, I've worked with consultants long enough to know nothing is without meaning. But I would also suggest that despite small budgets, schools and libraries are actually major players in introducing books to children. More effective, often, than bookstores because of the length of their exposure to them (often daily).
>
> And even if the list were solely institutional (again - it is not) we are all, in the end, retail consumers - many of us expressing frustration with lack of content that meets our needs, or clients needs or our own children's needs.. I am often tickled when I am criticized for not "liking" what some publisher picked out for me. I don't know what other industry thrives on that assumption. Certainly my former employer is learning that hard lesson now, and one prior to that is now bankrupt. Interestingly enough, all of us should be more in tune with what publishers have produced. The fact that we are not speaks to poor visibility. If we don't know about it and share the data on this list - then how on earth does a consumer not tapped in to the network or a reader of trade publications know about it?
>
> As for supply and demand this is more about ELASTICITY of demand. I would posit that with the demographics of children being born in the U.S. shifting away from dominant culture and with the media (publishers, etc.) continuing to act as if it isn't - there is significant DISCONNECT in what publisher's models are achieving. You often conclude there are no sales because there are no buyers. I would conclude that publishers set up a poor model decades ago and have failed to adequately compensate for it. At some point their primary buyer will become the minority in this country and ethnic buyers will simply spend their economic clout on competitive products.
>
> One need only look at the slim margins, the consolidations and the bankruptcies to see that asking a publisher to explain the disconnect arising from their "rigorous" sales forecasting is specious at best.
>
> Most successful consultants poll the end-users about their preferences and buying patterns. They ask THEM what the disconnect is between publisher assumptions and consumer needs. They don't put them in a box and condemn them for not being profitable because they don't like the product and won't spend their money on it.
>
> Marketing lesson over. But frankly - that's B-school first year stuff……Christine
>
>
>
---
You are currently subscribed to ccbc-net as: ccbc-archive_at_post.education.wisc.edu.
To post to the list, send message to: ccbc-net_at_lists.wisc.edu
To receive messages in digest format, send a message to...
ccbc-net-request_at_lists.wisc.edu
...and include only this command in the body of the message:
set ccbc-net digest
CCBC-Net Archives
The CCBC-Net archives are available to all CCBC-Net listserv members. The archives are organized by month and year. A list of discussion topics (including month/year) is available at http://www.education.wisc.edu/ccbc/ccbcnet/archives.asp
To access the archives, go to:
http://ccbc.education.wisc.edu/ccbc-net
and enter the following:
username: ccbc-net
password: Look4Posts
Received on Sun 02 Mar 2014 07:04:11 PM CST
