Buying books digitally, whether through online retail or as e-books through the Kindle, is cheaper and faster than making a trip to the local bookstore. In particular, the e-book seemed to herald the dawn of a new, digital era in how consumers obtain and store their literature. Did Amazon deliberately intend to kill the bookstore? Amazon certainly heralded the dawn of a new age in bookselling, using its online presence and massive scale to drastically lower costs for consumers.
Chain bookstores, like all other physical book vendors, do offer something that online vendors cannot: an enjoyable browsing experience. This raises an unexpected dimension in the relationship between Amazon and its supposed retail nemeses. Bookstores certainly do not need Amazon and the competition it brings, but the online giant may need bookstores in order to sustain demand for its products.
Perhaps this unique advantage is the secret behind recent consumer data, which shows a surprising return to form among American consumers: physical books and booksellers are on the rise again. After a meteoric rise, e-book sales over the past few years plateaued at around 20 percent of the market and actually fell significantly in According to the American Booksellers Association, the number of indie bookstores in the United States has increased 27 percent since There are currently 2, in the United States according to the ABA, a number roughly on par with the number of chain bookstores in In other words, the degree to which physical book vendors will be able to retake the ground gained by Amazon and its peers remains in doubt.
Amazon, I believed, was trying to correct a problem of its own creation—to resurrect the physical bookstore as a bare-bones showroom for its online presence. Critics accused another former Harvard student, Franklin D.
Roosevelt, Class of , of being a class traitor for supporting New Deal social programs and regulation of big business. Unfortunately, many have been unable to disentangle the importance of the Occupy Harvard protest from the hassle of the gate closure. We should be telling you that. We the custodians should not have to bear the burden of the economy alone.
With this contract settlement, Harvard has made a surprising turnaround. Not only did custodians win parity, they won it for all campus employees, including security guards and food service workers. And so we are demanding better, in the Yard, right now. We do not agree with each other on every particular, and I cannot speak for the movement, but we are united in wanting Harvard to truly be a university that serves the 99 percent.
The University is resisting, of course, most visibly by requiring IDs to enter campus. The administration is doing that, and can stop at any time. The occupiers are doing nothing more than making our voices heard, one tent at a time. Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.
By Dylan R. Matthews , Crimson Staff Writer.
0コメント