Search results

The case is written based on publicly available data from primary sources like the company’s annual reports and presentations and from secondary sources, as indicated in the references.

Barnes & Noble Inc. (B&N), one of the oldest and largest American retail booksellers founded in 1917, was facing a grim business situation underpinned by a fall in demand, a change in consumer preference and stiff competition. After almost a century of being in the business, B&N was experiencing a fall in market share and weak stock market performance. In 2019, the company was sold to Elliot Advisors – a hedge fund – for US$638m. With the appointment of new chief executive officer (CEO) James Daunt in August 2019, a man known for the turnaround of similar businesses, B&N expected its business’s revival and reorganization strategy to turn profitable. Its long-term strategy of beating competitors with its offerings’ sheer volume and low prices was no longer viable. The turmoil was compounded by top management crises with the repeated changes and ousting of several CEOs in a short span, alongside the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent lockdowns in 2020 and 2021. Daunt was considering how to overcome the crisis and act fast to reposition the company and regain the loyalty of its customers. Was there more that the company could do to improve the company’s position and restore profitability?

The case can be used in strategic management and entrepreneurship classes at undergraduate and postgraduate levels. The case can be used in an investment analysis and management course to teach students the industry analysis technique using Porter’s five forces model.

Librarianship’s dominant conception of the freedom to read is governed by a liberal principle of noninterference, wherein free readers are those who face no intentional intervention in their choice of materials. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate how this account fails to adequately capture systemic threats that impoverish people’s reading lives.

This conceptual paper deploys informal argumentation to expose a flaw in the dominant account of the freedom to read. The author uses a case study of comparative titles or comps, an editorial decision-making and justificatory convention that reproduces racial inequality in Anglophone trade publishing.

Comps present one example of how everyday norms and practices of literary production render people’s reading lives pervasively unfree, even absent some intent to interfere in them. The going account of the freedom to read calls, at best, for a greater diversity of book-commodities from which consumers may choose. However, the comp case suggests that this distributive remedy will be insufficient without relevant changes to the institutional arrangements that condition readers' choices in the first place.

This paper draws together insights from Library and Information Science, political philosophy and print culture studies to illuminate limitations in librarianship’s standard conception of the freedom to read. This reveals the need for an alternative, structural account of that freedom with significant implications for practice.