On Thursday, May 14, Dr. Ron Smith, Seattle University’s vice
president for finance and business affairs, sent an e-mail to the
faculty and staff that read, in part: “Over the next few weeks, Seattle
University, under my direction, will conduct a process to determine
whether it makes sense for us to partner with an external
company to run our bookstore operations.” There are several
companies that serve this purpose, but there’s only one goliath in the
industry: Over the last 20 years, Barnes & Noble has quietly
leased the operations of over 600 university bookstores nationwide.
Thanks to clever branding camouflage, many times it’s almost impossible
to notice when a college bookstore is owned by Barnes & Noble; the
bookstores for North Seattle Community College, Seattle Central
Community College, and Seattle Pacific University are all lease
partners with B&N.
The SU Bookstore is a relatively modest affair if you’re a browser
interested in general topics. There are a few shelves of
general-interest titles, and books by Chuck Palahniuk and Stephenie
Meyer are on the store’s best-seller list. On a recent visit, several
employees who asked to remain anonymous were grumbling about the
potential change in management. Even though Smith’s e-mail stated, “We
will insist that members of our staff be provided opportunities to
remain in their current or similar positions,” the booksellers were
openly skeptical. “That’s just not true,” one of them said.
The numbers seem back up the bookseller: A list of
bookstore-outsourcing facts prepared by SU staffers that was given to
The Stranger claims lease operators usually keep their average
payroll at about 8 percent of total expenses. The SU Bookstore
estimates that if the corporate averages were applied to their store,
four full-time positions would be lost. And lease operators do
not allow for work-study positions, while SU Bookstore provides
$100,000 annually in work-study and financial-aid assistance.
Of course, this would all be a moot point if the SU Bookstore were
losing money; chains like B&N are experts at squeezing profit from
even the most fallow stores. But leaked financial records for the SU
Bookstore show that last year the store made an 11 percent
profit—$538,996, almost double the industry standard of 6.1
percent profit—making it one of the few bookstores in Seattle to
turn a profit last year. And because it’s a nonprofit wholly owned by
the university, all of that money returned to SU.
One anonymous bookseller, by e-mail, theorized that the only money
SU would save from leasing the bookstore would be through a leaser’s
probable reduction of employee benefits. Another bookseller who
is also an SU student said that if the university leases the store, “I
would feel disillusioned about a [university] that I took to be an
institution that did want to make a positive change in the world” and
that expected students to “engage compassionately and thoughtfully both
on campus and in the world at large.”
Of course the employees are upset, but the switch could potentially
be bad news for customers, too: Corporate leasers generally charge more
for school-branded merchandise and are less likely to carry a wide
selection of used textbooks, which currently makes up 40 percent of the
inventory at SU Bookstore.
Dr. Smith forwarded The Stranger‘s requests for comments to
Soon Beng Yeap, the assistant VP for marketing at University
Communications. Yeap forwarded that request to Casey Corr, SU’s
director of strategic communications. In lieu of commenting, Corr
re-sent a copy of Dr. Smith’s original letter and said to “please make
sure it’s clear to your readers that no decision has been made.”
What executive in their right mind would sell a profitable business. Business school always taught me to sell the $ losers and keep the $ makers. Looks like the Peter Principle at its finest.
Losing those work-study positions is just what we need in today’s tough economy. Because you know who needs to scale down? Students.
depending on how it’s structured, it can be a good arrangement for the university. also would be one less thing for the university leadership to think about. PLUS a BN can bring specialized IT, knowledge, etc. to running a bookstore. and yeah there’s tradeoffs. seems like the university could push for certain key things in the contract, and still manage to “get out of the book business.” wondering what is driving this all.
The trouble with reading any story in the Spectator is trying to guess which facts are just left out versus which “facts” are just plain false.
To make the university look bad and thus justify the time he put into this little story, Constant leaves out facts student journalists at the Seattle University got… just by reading the same memo Constant obtained.
Read the student journalist account that is more complete, balanced and accurate.
http://media.www.su-spectator.com/media/…
And here’s one line Constant ignores from what the Spectator reported:
“Smith wrote in an e-mail that a decision hasn’t been made yet but that, as in the university’s outsourcing of the Office of Information Technology to SunGard Higher Education, administrators will “insist” bookstore staff be offered similar or current positions should the bookstore be outsourced. “
Hey, Paul, for a book editor, how come you can’t finish reading a memo?
Nice job Stranger. Right on. Check NY Times 8/14/95 – Follett and Barnes & Noble sued by publisher for theft and sale $12 Million of stolen books. Just the kind of business partner SU needs.
Want to see what you will be getting with B&N? Compare SU’s Bookstore and Seattle Central Bookstore. WOW!
B&N leased WSU Bookstore a couple of years ago. How well did that work out? One of the top university bookstores in the nation is no more.
@ 4 – I think your first sentence should read the Stranger, not the Spectator.
@ 5 – right, because being sued 14 years ago clearly means a business is unethical. Clearly.
@4: It’s pretty obvious you didn’t read my story. The “insist” that you hang so much on is right there in the middle of the second paragraph of this story.
But thanks for your meaningless input.
@8, that is to say: Paul Constant, I stand corrected on what you mentioned in the second paragraph. I withdraw the complaint and apologize in addition that my first line was poorly written. I meant to say the Stranger has low standards. The Spectator is pretty good.
So Paul, forgive me.
But as an anonymous poster, how come you put all the credibility on anonymous and unidentified sources. My earlier post was sloppy and wrong. Geez. Maybe anonymous sources aren’t so reliable.
Thanks for walking into the trap I set for you.
@4.
p.s. nothing personal. I’m glad the Stranger has a book critic. The dismissive, snarky complaint applies to the Stranger’s standards of reporting, which is to say there are no standards. Except when ECB and others are on a rant about the mainstream media.
Thanks for reading.
“One anonymous bookseller, by e-mail, theorized that the only money SU would save from leasing the bookstore would be through a leaser’s probable reduction of employee benefits. “
As someone all too familiar with this business, I can tell you that, yes, the reduction of employee benefits would be a big plus but also the entire bookstore ops would be moved to an external company- any charges brought on by a brick & mortar location purchasing & reselling inventory would be made by B&N money, not SU. In fact, SU would make a commission on 99% of whatever is sold there. They’d be turning a profit while not putting much money (building maintenance only, perhaps) into the operation.
“Of course the employees are upset, but the switch could potentially be bad news for customers, too: Corporate leasers generally charge more for school-branded merchandise and are less likely to carry a wide selection of used textbooks, which currently makes up 40 percent of the inventory at SU Bookstore.”
School-branded merch could cost more because SU would want their licensing cut in addition to whatever 3rd party manufactures it- the one that would charge B&N for it. Sorry, but if license plate frames with Seattle U on it are important to you, you will pay for them. There’s not a big market for them, this is how it works.
Not sure how the used inventory would disappear…SU is probably conducting student buyback which is the best source for used books. They’re most likely also heading toward MBS or Follett Wholesale to source used- the very same companies a biggie like B&N or Follett would use. This point doesn’t hold much water.
I see that no comment is made on the effect on the students at large within the SU community.
If as #10 suggests the re-branding and buying of books from other sources will raise prices to increase the profit of the bookstore, who is going to hurt the most…the students. As a private institution, tuition alone is not cheap by any standards.
The university needs to remember the mission that it is trying to project, especially with its Jesuit tradition, and apply that to this decision. SU is often seen as an institution that values success by doing the most good rather than making the most money and “empowering leaders for a just and humane world.” Outsourcing seems to ignore this commitment.
Mark, I think I should clarify-
What I mean by the sourcing of used books was that it’s likely that SU’s store is already using the same used book sourcing methods that a big private company like Barnes & Noble College or Follett would use.
What would be different, is that B&N would get better margins from MBS (a company intimately related with them) than MBS would charge SU independently.
Mark, I think I should clarify-
What I meant by the sourcing of used books was that it’s likely that SU’s store is already using the same used book sourcing methods that a big private company like Barnes & Noble College or Follett would use.
What would be different, is that B&N would get better margins from MBS (a company intimately related with them) than MBS would charge SU independently.