Jump to content

Talk:Borders Group

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Original location

[edit]

The Ann Arbor Borders has only been at its current Liberty Street site since the mid-nineties. Before then it was on State. Was the State Street location the original? (I moved to Ann Arbor in 1993, and I don't know how long Borders had then been on State.) Molinari 00:14, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that was the original location. I know for certain it was there in 1977, because I used to go there. --Chowbok 15:53, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Page move

[edit]

I moved Borders Books and Music to Borders Group because the company isn't called Borders Books and Music. I fixed the 50+ links that linked to Borders Books and Music so don't worry. — oo64eva (Alex) (U | T | C) @ 07:09, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Erm the Puerto Rico stores are not international ones.

I changed the CEO's name since it has recently changed from Greg Josefowicz to George L. Jones. Should someone mention its upcoming/completed SBC conversions?

[edit]

Info on unionization was removed due to lack of relevance to the present operations of the company.

Also, info was removed which cited specific examples from Australia & the U.K. Here are the larger trends which could be inserted in place of these examples: (1) Waldenbooks (i.e.) mall locations are closing and being replaced by Borders superstores in the same mall or relocated nearby; and (2) not all cafes operate as Seattle's Best -- cafes in Hawaii are Starbucks, and in a few locations in the continental U.S., they're Dean & Deluca.

1971?

[edit]

The official Borders history says the store was founded in 1971. Maybe they don't count the used book operation that preceded the Wahr's buyout? Rees11 16:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't.

Store #2

[edit]

How long has store number two at Southfield and 13 Mile in Beverly Hills, MI been around? It's the longest running location for sure. MMetro (talk) 07:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Split?

[edit]

Shouldn't the UK section of this company be a seperate article now as it was sold off. Borders UK I believe is the companies name. --Lemming64 19:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Split!

[edit]

I've started a page for Borders (UK) Ltd. and plan to gradually expand it. Although there is a page for Luke Johnson, there aren't for his Risk Capital Partners, it's subsidiary, Bookshop Acquisitions Ltd. or the Books etc. brand; Something I also plan to work on, albeit it gradually. Further plans I have encompass Philip Downer (Borders (UK)'s current C.E.O. and, his predecessor, David Roche, who, according to theBookseller.com [1] is a highly-rated and talented retailer in the book industry [2] Klausifier (talk) 18:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The big Borders controversy?

[edit]

I'm confused that the section entitled "controversy" refers to a cartoon. I'm aware of a lot of concern among writers and other booksellers that chain stores such as Borders have had some pretty inherent and negative effects on the variety of published thought available to the public. Should this be mentioned somewhere (anywhere?) in the article? --Sojumba (talk) 21:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Sojumba[reply]

Are you guys sure Borders biggest store is in Malaysia?

[edit]

Cause I know Borders stores in Puerto Rico are pretty big too.

The largest Borders is definitely Kuala Lumpur at 60000sq ft[1]. Compare that to the (now previous) average U.S. Borders store at 25000 sq ft (in Feb 2008 Borders announced the new stores will be even smaller). --BizMgr (talk) 04:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.detnews.com/2005/business/0504/19/1biz-155351.htm

Sale of Australian, Singaporean and New Zealand Stores

[edit]

Should the page be updated regarding the sale of these stores to the Angus & Robertson's chain? There is a link to a press release here: [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.50.89.32 (talk) 01:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Banning of Michael Moore

[edit]

Anyone know if Michael Moore is still banned from entering Borders?

http://www.labournet.net/ukunion/9912/borders4.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe2832 (talk • contribs) 07:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes he is, but so am I. The same company that has taken all from Kitty Kelley is no more. No one is welcome in their stores. --82.134.28.194 (talk) 08:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply From a Former Employee

[edit]

First of all, Moore was never "banned" from entering Borders. In outline, Moore was doing a book signing tour at a time when unionization was a hot issue in some Midwestern and Eastern stores. He made some harshly critical comments (in his usual, inimitable style) about company employment practices...including some ongoing, sensitive legal issues. As a result, the remainder of the tour was cancelled and he was told that he would not be welcome to do any future signings. Naturally, Moore presented it as a censorship issue, but consider this: If you invited someone into your home and they said bad things about you in front of your family, would you invite them back? I don't think so. Two closing asides: (1.) This reply was not officially written or inspired. (2.) At all of the stores which voted to unionize, the employees have since changed their minds and voted to kick the unions out! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.67.44.77 (talk) 19:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm off base and throwing fuel on the "fire", but I happened to noticed that there was some sort of Anti-Obama, Anti-Democrat, Anti-Liberal book on every single front table & immediate side display (even the "If you Like This, then you'll like These" had 5 conservative books lined up) in our store in No. Virginia - what uber-conservative is at the helm for the Borders Boat? I turned around and walked out b/c I was looking for something new to read to distract me from all the negativity in the media @ the moment & couldn't even escape it in a Borders! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.151.197 (talk) 22:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let me first state that this page is for discussing the article. Be that as it may, Borders has to stock what sells, including books that cater to a conservative point of view (usually, it's some claptrap from Regnery publishing). There are also books that cater to the liberal point of view. Part of being suxxessful in retailing is finding out what people want to buy, and stocking enough of it to generate revenue, but not so much that it sits on the shelves gathering dust. Disclosure: I was a Waldenbooks employee (which was part of Borders Group) from 1994-1997.THD3 (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if I'm not mistaken, these issues were in the article at some point and later removed because they were considered too "controversial" and lacked the necessary neutrality. As a current Borders employee, let me note that the "If you like..." displays are often ad hoc and may differ substantially between Northern Virginia and New York City, for example, and the front tables reflect whatever people are writing at the moment. Over time, it all tends to even out. PS: Regnery has some very good books (despite the fact that they're all conservative...oh, the Horror!!!) and every publisher has at least some claptrap in its catalogue (occasionally even the liberal variety).198.179.227.58 (talk) 03:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The image File:Borders logoUK.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History

[edit]

Restored the first section of the history (pre-Kmart), that had been deleted in an earlier vandalism attack. Also deleted this sentence

Borders owns a majority stake in Paperchase Products Limited, a leading gifts and stationery retailer in the United Kingdom, and showcases their products in their stores, as well as Books etc., Borders' other, mostly London-based bookshop chain.

as it refers to the independent British Borders company. Rojomoke (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear 86.150.173.123

[edit]

Sorry I can't speak to you directly. I deleted your last contribution to this article for two reasons: (1.)The information was outdated. All of the stores in other countries using the Borders name are owned by other companies or franchised. Plus, the account of our corporate history in England was not entirely accurate. (Trust me, I've worked for Borders for 15 years). (2.) The history and current status of our international operations is covered elsewhere in the article. Thank you for your interest though. Why not get an account so you can have a talk page?WQUlrich (talk) 20:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editors:Is this a conflict of interest or does it make me an "expert"?WQUlrich (talk) 20:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

WhisperToMe (talk) 06:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

speaking of sources.. alot of this article is unsourced original research. anyone gets time feel free to add some sources. -Tracer9999 (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More:

  • de la Merced, Michael J. and Julie Bosman. "Calling Off Auction, Borders to Liquidate." The New York Times. July 18, 2011.
  • Says that Borders was well known for taking "special care in selling paperbacks" so its closure could harm paperback biz
  • B&N and Books a Million could move into empty Borders locations. A B&N spokesperson said that 70% of B&N locations are within five miles of a Borders store.
  • Also says independent bookstores could benefit

And...

WhisperToMe (talk) 09:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


This Bloomberg Business article is a more reputable source for the September final shut-down than the Facebook page (which I cannot access =[).

Borders' Ann Arbor flagship store closes doors --Computercolin (talk) 00:58, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I didn't see an article listing the post-July 399 location shutdown. Here is one. Same article content as was published in the San Francisco Chronicle.

Borders to shut down remaining 399 stores --Computercolin (talk) 01:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving spree

[edit]

I found: http://investor.borders.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=65380&p=irol-index

Who wants to help archive Borders material, like annual reports, etc.?

To do so, put them on http://webcitation.org

Files:

WhisperToMe (talk) 07:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Missed opportunity by understaffing?

[edit]

Why "Good Jobs" Are Good for Retailers, Harvard Business Review, Zeynep Ton, Jan.-Feb. 2012.

" . . . In addition, many retailers see labor as a cost driver rather than a sales driver and therefore focus on minimizing its costs. Accordingly, they often evaluate store managers on whether they meet monthly (or weekly) targets for payroll as a percentage of sales. These managers don’t have much control over sales (they almost never make decisions on merchandise mix, layout, price, or promotions), but they do have a fair amount of control over payroll. So when sales decrease, they immediately reduce staffing levels. . . "

" . . . Indeed, my research suggests that understaffing retail stores amounts to a missed opportunity: In my analysis of data from 1999 through 2002 from more than 250 stores of Borders [emphasis added], a major bookstore chain at the time, I found that a one-standard-deviation increase in labor levels at a store increased profit margins by 10% over the course of a year. . . "

This might be worth including as part of the business analysis. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: Velocity: The Seven New Laws for a World Gone Digital. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:36, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Borders Group. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Borders Group. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:33, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UAE, Oman and Malaysia

[edit]

A series of IP accounts have been posting that the Borders’ trademarks, country-specific domain name, and intellectual property were bought by other parties in these countries - also adding the business URLs.

Assuming third-party reliable sources exist, then it would make sense to mention them in the article. But the business links to their domains would not be appropriate. If the claims are true, then these new entities would be separate businesses with their own management, culture, and operations. If they meet the threshold of notability on their own, then it may be appropriate to create their own articles with the business' own domains in them. But it's not appropriate to piggyback their content into this article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Borders Group. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

there is no Borders "At present"

[edit]

Deleted this bit, as the business no longer seems to exist "at present" at all. 

== At present ==
Borders Group has begun an expansion process forming alliances with various publishers, opening a market in Latin 
America. In addition, Borders has begun to venture into the e-book market, optimizing its worldwide distribution 
procedures.[citation needed]

The URL for the company website points to B&N's website.

73.161.233.165 (talk) 15:35, 17 April 2020 (UTC)lonetone[reply]

Wahr's?

[edit]

A paragraph in the "History" section starts with this sentence:

"Wahr's had been mainly a textbook and school-supplies vendor, but the brothers did not deal in textbooks."

What was "Whar's", and what was its relevance to Borders? It isn't mentioned anywhere else in the article. It looks like maybe the founders of Borders bought them out and started their first store in that location, but again, it's not mentioned anywhere else in the article. Ormewood (talk) 19:34, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Borders_Group&oldid=1206376868"