Amazon won’t let users review James Comey’s new book if they didn’t purchase it through the site

22 April 2018

From The Verge:

Amazon is restricting users from posting reviews of former FBI Director James Comey’s new book, A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership, unless the reviewer has purchased the book through the retailer.

Deadline noticed the issue, noting that the restriction is in place for the print and Kindle editions, and that some low-rated reviews might have also been removed as well. A review on audiobook platform Audible, which is owned by Amazon, complains that the user’s prior review had also been removed. We’ve reached out to Amazon and Audible for comment, and will update this post if we hear back. Barnes and Noble doesn’t appear to have any such restrictions for its reviews, and its reviews include a number of anonymous one and five starred reviews.

. . . .

This isn’t the first time that Amazon has restricted reviews for high-profile books: the company deleted a number of one-star reviews of Hillary Clinton’s book What Happened and Michael Wolfe’s book Fire & Fury: Inside the Trump White House following their publication, under the suspicion that they were published by opponents. Amazon’s Community Guidelines state that it will restrict non-Amazon Verified Purchase reviews for products when the company detects an “unusually high numbers of reviews for a product posted in a short period of time.”

Link to the rest at The Verge

A Brilliant 1895 Novel on the Emptiness of Literary Fame

21 April 2018

From The New Yorker:

The Croatian writer Dubravka Ugrešić, in an essay on the fickleness of the literary marketplace, discusses how she would dress up the classics of modern literature and submit them as book proposals to U.S. publishers. She makes a few alterations to “The Old Man and the Sea,” including stressing “the ecological aspect of the thing” and changing “the old man into a good-looking young Cuban exile, gay.” She finds success. A stab at “One Hundred Years of Solitude” is not so lucky: “ ‘Forget the contents!’ said the editor. ‘No one could possibly follow that story. But there’s no reason not to use that great title.’ ” Her whimsical essay is a bit inventive, Ugrešić admits, but she’s straightforward in her advice to would-be writers, that, unlike her, they should probably keep quiet about the absurdities of their chosen field, unless they seek to sever the branch they’re sitting on.

The hustle and randomness to literary success, its sense of interchangeability, are at the heart of a newly translated novella by Arthur Schnitzler, released by New York Review Books Classics last summer. Finished in 1895, the brilliant “Late Fame” concerns an aging Viennese civil servant who, virtually out of nowhere, is crowned a master poet by an eccentric coffeehouse group of striving writers and actors. The tale consists of little more than the man’s ascension and the orchestration of a public reading, yet in Schnitzler’s hands it becomes a distorted mirror onto the less-talked-about side of literary life—from workshopping to self-promotion, favor trading, and reviews. (“Was it even allowed,” the complacent and cipher-ish hero, Eduard Saxberger, reflects apropos of reviews, “to take a decent person who had done nothing wrong and treat him like this?”) Inwardly, Saxberger goes from feeling that life has passed him by to feeling awakened to his inborn specialness, that “he was indeed a poet!” The slim book that he bases this realization on, “The Wanderings,” was written more than thirty years ago, but never mind: it’s a good fit for the cultish and bickering Enthusiasm Society, whose members decry literary fashion and careerism while rallying around a conviction in their own criminally ignored gifts.

. . . .

The restless souls at the center of Schnitzler’s farce, mischievously and briskly delineated, were partly modelled on the group of writers known as “Young Vienna”: critics bring up names like Hugo von Hofmannsthal, Peter Altenberg, and Stefan George. But whatever human clay helped supply their quirks, the Enthusiasm Society amounts to a diverse repository of absurd writerly and creative types, reflected in their range of ages and specialties: in addition to poets, there’s a dramatist, two actors, a novelist, and a critic. “We are simply artists,” is how they are introduced to the pliant, clean-shaven Saxberger. Oblivious Romantics in a modernizing world, they say things like “I write what I have to,” “You, too, have been destroyed by the public,” and “I will permit myself to send you my ‘Zenobia’?” An oppressive heat and smokiness fills their favored coffeehouse. “I’ve been running around town all afternoon . . . something has to be done . . . people have to know about us,” an irritable ballad-writer declares, vocalizing the wider ache to be noticed. This being before social media, a solution is devised in the form of a reading. They find a site normally reserved for carnivals and small dances. Here, old literary work can mingle seamlessly with the unfinished, and the collective can be launched with a manifesto. (It’s titled “What We Want” and, in fact, airs one member’s grievances while being ghostwritten totally by another.) The plan is for Saxberger, benign and verifiably gray-haired, to bestow his would-be grandeur on this motley and largely unpublished troupe.

Link to the rest at The New Yorker

The covers

21 April 2018

The covers of this book are too far apart.

Ambrose Bierce

8 Pride and Prejudice Sequels For The Discerning Jane Austen Fan

21 April 2018

From Bookriot:

It is a truth universally acknowledged that a reader who finishes reading Jane Austen’s Pride & Prejudice is in want of more to read. We already prepared one list of what to read when you want more Pride & Prejudice… and we still want more! What was married life like for Lizzie and Darcy? Whatever became of Mary and Kitty Bennett? Did Georgiana Darcy or Caroline Bingley ever find love… perhaps with one another? How would the story unfold in a contemporary setting? Or with teenage characters? Luckily, there is no shortage of options for the P&P enthusiast. Here are some of our recent favourite Pride and Prejudice sequels.

Pride And Prescience: Or, A Truth Universally Acknowledged by Carrie Bebris

Interestingly, many storytellers imagine Lizzie and Darcy’s married life will find them solving murders. In this, the first of the Mr. and Mrs. Darcy Mysteries, the newlyweds begin their new amateur sleuthing career with a mystery involving their in-laws, the Bingleys. As the series progresses, the Darcys encounter mysteries involving characters from other Austen novels, too!

. . . .

Miss Darcy Falls In Love By Sharon Lathan

Darcy’s younger sister Georgiana played a small but notable role in the original novel; here, she takes centre stage. Embarking upon a concert tour of the continent, Georgiana finds her heart torn between two men she meets in Paris. Set in post-Napoleonic Empire France, this is a riveting love story that enters a world of passion where gentlemen know exactly how to please and a young woman learns to direct her destiny and understand her heart.

Link to the rest at Bookriot

Every top New York Times best-seller this year has been about Trump

21 April 2018

From CNN:

Since January, each book at the top of The New York Times best-seller list has had one thing in common: President Trump.

James Comey’s book “A Higher Loyalty” will surely keep the streak alive. Comey’s high-profile launch is also highlighting Trump’s broader effects on book sales.

The No. 1 spot on The Times’ hardcover nonfiction list is incredibly coveted real estate in the publishing industry. Michael Wolff’s “Fire and Fury” landed there in mid-January thanks to explosive allegations and a full-throated presidential attack.

“Fury” held onto the No. 1 spot until Michael Isikoff and David Corn’s “Russian Roulette” came along in March. The book — subtitled “The Inside Story of Putin’s War on America and the Election of Donald Trump” — was on top for three weeks.

. . . .

There is a caveat about The Times list: Psychologist Jordan Peterson’s book “12 Rules For Life” has been a hot seller for months, and might have ranked No. 1, but because it is published by a Canadian company, it is not counted by the U.S. newspaper.

Link to the rest at CNN

By including this item, PG is not inviting a political war in the Comments section of TPV. There are many other (and better) online locations for those discussions.

Rather, he wonders what this says about Big Publishing and The New York Times bestseller lists.

Whatever his strengths and weaknesses, Mr. Trump did win the 2016 Presidential Election. He did so by winning 30 states with 306 pledged electors out of 538 total electors. The results were known on November 8, 2016, 529 days ago.

Like four previous US Presidents (1824: John Quincy Adams, 1876: Rutherford B. Hayes, 1888: Benjamin Harrison and 2000: George W. Bush) Mr. Trump did not win the country-wide popular vote.

On a state-by-state basis, Ms. Clinton won in the most populous state – California – but Mr. Trump won seven out of the ten most populous states: Texas (#2), Florida (#3), Pennsylvania (#5), Ohio (#7), Georgia (#8), North Carolina (#9) and Michigan (#10).

The large New York publishers behind the anti-Trump bestsellers have not, to PG’s knowledge (he’s happy to be corrected),  released any best-selling pro-Trump books or anti-Clinton books.

While it’s no surprise that the New York-based companies hire New York-based employees, the majority of whom quite probably did not vote for Mr. Trump, PG wonders if anyone in New York thought there might be a market for a pro-Trump or anti-Clinton book.

Even before Amazon released constantly-updated bestseller rankings, the methodology behind the New York Times bestseller lists (which is confidential and described only in the most general terms by the paper) was widely-questioned.

In fact, as reported on TPV and elsewhere, it was possible to game the NYT bestseller lists and shadowy companies could (for a fee) guarantee that a book would appear as an NYT bestseller the week it was released. Typically, they accomplished this by using a variety of people to purchase books from retail bookstores known or suspected to be consulted by the Times for its weekly bestseller lists.

The most recent report about such behavior that PG could locate with a quick search was from Vox in September, 2017. Here’s an excerpt:

On August 24, an unknown book by an unknown author from an unknown publisher rocketed its way to first place on the Times’s young adult hardcover best-seller list. But as a scrappy band of investigators who congregated in the YA Twitter community discovered, it wasn’t because a lot of people were reading the book. Handbook for Mortals by Lani Sarem bought its way onto the list, they concluded, with the publisher and author strategically ordering large numbers of the book from stores that report their sales to the New York Times. Shortly thereafter, the Times removed the book from its rankings.

And on September 4, Regnery Books — the conservative publishing imprint that publishes Ann Coulter and Dinesh D’Souza, among others — denounced the New York Times best-seller list as biased against conservatives. Why, it demanded, was D’Souza’s new book The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left ranked as seventh on the Times’s hardcover nonfiction list when Nielsen BookScan’s data, per Regnery’s interpretation, suggested it should be first? Regnery concluded that the New York Times was actively conspiring against conservative titles, and announced that it would sever all ties with the Times.

. . . .

Becoming a New York Times best-seller has a measurable effect on a book’s sales, especially for books by debut authors. According to a 2004 study by economics professor Alan Sorensen, appearing on the New York Times’s best-seller list increased debut authors’ sales by 57 percent. On average, it increased sales by 13 or 14 percent.

Besides the list’s effect on sales, it offers prestige. If your book appears on the New York Times list — even just for a week in the last slot of the Advice, How-To & Miscellaneous category — you get to call yourself a New York Times best-seller for the rest of your life. You can put that honor on the cover of all of your other books.

. . . .

The author and publisher of Handbook for Mortals reportedly hoped that gaming the New York Times best-seller list would make it easier for them to sell the book’s film rights down the road, which is presumably why they were willing to spend the money to get the book onto the list.

. . . .

So all of the different best-seller lists have established their own methodologies to gather sales data — and once they’ve got it, they break it down differently. They put the break between one week and another in different spots (ending on Sunday versus Saturday, for example); they use different categories to sort the lists; they weigh digital and print titles differently.

. . . .

It’s widely rumored that independent bookstore sales are weighted more heavily than Walmart sales [by the NYT], for instance, but the Times has never confirmed this. Some observers have also suggested that it weights print sales from traditional publishers more heavily than it does digital sales from digital publishers or self-publishers, because books that do very well on Amazon’s in-house imprints seem to rarely show up on the Times list

Link to the rest at Vox

PG suspects the NYT bestseller list methodology is focused on generating bestselling books that the NYT believes its subscribers would buy (or should buy. Certain NYT bestsellers are notoriously never read. See below. ).

To be clear, PG says the NYT is absolutely free to do this, but might be a bit more upfront about its objectives.

As organizations comprised largely of people who see the world through the NYT, major US publishers are significantly impacted by the NYT. An editor at HarperCollins receives some sort of gold star if one of her books makes the NYT lists. If she consistently has a book or two that make the NYT lists each year, she gains more than a little job security.

On the other hand, even if our theoretical HC editor could credibly claim one of her authors was killing it in Houston, Miami, Cleveland and Charlotte, but, for some unknown reason, hadn’t made the NYT lists, she’s less likely to brag about it to her boss.

As far as NYT bestsellers that are never read, a long time ago, a NYT columnist even wrote about the phenomenon.

The tale of the emperor’s new clothes has been around a long time. But how about defining another category of mass delusion, the emperor’s new book: the insanely popular, often intellectually intimidating book that sells hundreds of thousands of copies (sometimes even millions) but that few people actually read.

The phenomenon of the unread best seller comes to mind because of the recent publication of ”Ravelstein,” Saul Bellow’s novel about the life and death of his friend Allan Bloom. In life, Bloom was a humanities professor well known only in the academy who gained international fame in 1987 after the surprising success of his dense treatise ”The Closing of the American Mind.” To this day, many consider it one of the prime examples of an emperor’s new book.

Another classic example also comes from the 1980’s: Stephen Hawking’s ”Brief History of Time” remains no doubt the most abstruse volume ever to sell nearly nine million copies around the world.

Figuring out which best sellers go unread is not easy, since most people don’t want to admit to the unfinished state of their reading. Much of the evidence is anecdotal. Bloom and Hawking, for instance, were the universal first responses when a small sampling of people in the book business were asked about unread best sellers. But a somewhat more solid indicator of unread books emerged in 1985 when Michael Kinsley, then of The New Republic, acted on his suspicions about reading habits in the nation’s capital.

Mr. Kinsley and a colleague put coupons redeemable for five dollars each in the back of 70 copies of selected books in Washington bookstores. Two of the books were ”Deadly Gambits: The Reagan Administration and the Stalemate in Nuclear Arms Control” by Strobe Talbott and ”The Good News Is the Bad News Is Wrong” by Ben J. Wattenberg. Though neither was a national best seller, they were chosen, Mr. Kinsley said, as the kinds of books Washingtonians were most likely to claim to have read. No one ever redeemed a coupon. The Kinsley report may be as scientific a study as there is.

. . . .

 Michael Willis was the marketing director at the Free Press in 1994, when the company published ”The Bell Curve” by Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray.”We thought it was very much the case that both professionals and the general public bought it to have it and didn’t read it,” he says. ”We got the sense even from reviews that people basically read the first chapter and the last.”

Link to the rest at The New York Times

 

The Library Book

21 April 2018

From EW:

After years and years of research, [Susan Orlean] has written The Library Book: an account of the most devastating library fire in American history that doubles as a true love letter to one of our most prized institutions.

Orlean reopens the case of the 1986 Los Angeles Public Library fire, which either destroyed or damaged more than a million books. Weaving her life-long love of books and reading with the fascinating history of libraries and the sometimes-eccentric characters who run them, Orlean investigates the fire to showcase the larger, crucial role that libraries play in our lives.

. . . .

She also delves into the evolution of libraries across the country and around the world, from a metropolitan charitable initiative to a cornerstone of national identity. Along the way, she reveals how these buildings provide much more than just books — and that they are needed now more than ever.

. . . .

“My sweetest memories are of going to the library with my mother when I was a kid, browsing the stacks with her, savoring even the smell of the books and the way they felt in my lap when we were driving home and I had my chosen few piled on my lap.”

Link to the rest at EW

Moral rights and architectural works in a recent Italian decision

20 April 2018

From The 1709 Blog:

To what extent can an architectural project be modified without the express consent of the architect without such modifications being an infringement of their moral right of integrity?

. . . .

In late 2000s well-known architect Stefano Boeri was commissioned to realize an architectural project – then become ‘Casa Bosco’ – for ‘residential standardized units – Low Cost housing units’ in Milan by virtue of a contract that foresaw that the architect and the commissioning party would have the co-ownership of any resulting rights, and also that any separate use of the project – including for marketing purposes – by either party should be authorized in writing by the other party.

Following the finalization of the project and the decision of Boeri to leave it due to his political commitment with the Municipality of Milan, a new contract was concluded to prepare the final version of the project and obtain the necessary administrative/building permits.

Also this contract envisaged that Boeri would co-own any rights to the project as finalized, save for the right to modify the project if any such modifications would be necessary to obtain the necessary authorization.

In 2014 Boeri brought proceedings for infringement of – among other things – Article 20(1) of the Italian Copyright Act. This provision states that, irrespective of economic rights and even after their transfer, the author of a work has the right to object to any deformation, mutilation or any other modifications, as well as any other act to the detriment of the work, that may be prejudicial to their honour or reputation. The architect claimed in fact that both modifications made to his social housing project ‘Casa Bosco’ and the transformation of the project into a for-profit enterprise indeed infringed his moral right of integrity.

. . . .

The Court began its analysis by noting that Article 20(2) of the Act also states that . . . “in works of architecture the author cannot object to any modifications that were necessary in the course of their realization. Similarly, they shall not object to any further modifications that were necessary to be made on a work that has been already realized.”

The judges noted that in Italian case law there have been two main interpretations of this provision. On the one hand, there is a restrictive view according to which the only possible modifications are those which in any case do not infringe the author’s moral right of integrity (hence, the provision would only apply with regard to economic rights). On the other hand, the prevalent view is that the derogation within Article 20(2) also applies to the right of integrity [this view appears preferable, also if one considers the fact that it is included within the provision devoted to moral rights]: the authorization of the author is not needed for any modifications that are detrimental to their honour or reputation should such modifications be indispensable to the realization of the work.

. . . .

The modifications lamented by the architect concerned: (1) the removal of contractual clauses relating to the future sale of the units; (2) the modification of the ratio between free construction- and social construction-reserved areas.

Link to the rest at The 1709 Blog

Disclaimer: The OP represents the only knowledge PG can remember ever obtaining about Italian real property law.

Based upon his knowledge of Italian real property law, PG would be disinclined to acquire any house or apartment designed by an architect. While he believes the rights of creators are important and should be recognized, if a typical home buyer spends a great deal of money acquiring a house and lives within its walls, the buyer should be able to make such modifications as he/she/they believe necessary or desirable.

With no disrespect toward the architect, the homeowner has a more intimate, personal and private relationship with the structure than the architect does. If an architectural feature interferes with the homeowner’s personal enjoyment of the home, the homeowner should be able to modify it as necessary to increase the homeowner’s personal enjoyment.

Again PG’s knowledge of Italian real property laws intrudes, but if, as a condition of acquiring the building, the homeowner had a full understanding of the limits on future modifications of the dwelling and willingly agreed to those limits as a condition of owning and/or using the home, PG has less sympathy if the homeowner  later becomes disillusioned with strucure’s design.

We think we have solved

20 April 2018

We think we have solved the mystery of creation. Maybe we should patent the universe and charge everyone royalties for their existence.

Stephen Hawking

How to read poetry like a professor

20 April 2018

From The Guardian:

Since retiring from his professorship at the University of Michigan-Flint, where he taught literature and writing for nearly 30 years, Thomas Foster has made a fruitful career writing instructive books about how we ought to read. With How to Read Literature Like a Professor, which he revised in 2014, Foster scored his first New York Times bestseller. It was followed by How to Read Novels Like a Professor, Twenty-five Books that Shaped America, and Reading the Silver Screen.

Now Foster, who studied English at Dartmouth College, turns his eye toward poetry, a form he says he “didn’t know how to handle” in grade school. His new book, How to Read Poetry Like a Professor, provides something of a blueprint for tackling verse while also disproving the notion that poetry is intimidating, esoteric, or, as Foster told the Guardian, “obscure on purpose”.

. . . .

Ezra Pound says the poem ought to work on the level of a person for whom a hawk is simply a hawk. That is excellent advice. Read that way, too, on a literal level first. Read what’s actually in front of you. And the next tip, which seems a little redundant but I don’t think it is, is read all the words. Not only do you need to read them, but you need to read them in the way that they are assembled. I don’t encounter this with beginning readers as much as I do readers with a little bit of experience, but there’s suddenly an urge to jump forward from the language on the page to hidden meanings or symbols that might be present. In doing so, I’ve had any number of students actually skip a key word. It really makes a difference if you skip over that word “not”. I don’t want anyone worrying about secondary meanings or symbolic suggestions until they’ve actually got a handle on what it is that it is saying on a literal level.

. . . .

There’s a great tendency in an art form that is written in lines to want to read lines. But lines, in a great many instances, don’t make sense and don’t contain complete meanings. If we stop at the end of every line as if we just read a full statement, and we all do at a certain early stage of reading, we’ll never get anything out of the poem because we will not have understood what it is that’s being said. Poems have this in conjunction with everything else that is written in English: their basic unit of meaning is the sentence, and we shouldn’t ignore that fact.

Link to the rest at The Guardian

Back when the earth was still cooling, PG spent a lot of time in college classes that required deep written analysis of poetry. He didn’t realize it at the time, but this was excellent preparation for conducting deep analysis of contracts and other legal documents. Ezra Pound was easy compared to a technology license drafted by inside and outside counsel working for Goldman Sachs.

PG will gently dissent from one of the professor’s points in the OP.

A good poet carefully constructs the sentences in a poem, but a good poet also constructs and breaks a line in a particular place with equally careful consideration.

The obvious example is poems in which the last word or words of each line rhyme. The poet could have placed rhyming words within the line (and some do), but the combination of the rhyme and the end of the line creates a different kind of break than the end of a sentence does. Quite often the rhyming words at the end of each line create a series of interlinked images, thoughts or sounds that are key to understanding the meaning of the poem.

In other cases, some of ends of a line rhyme and others do not, the second and fourth lines in a four-line stanza, for example.

Sometimes the rhyming words are linked or contrasted in meaning. Here’s a Wilfred Owen poem comprised of four three-line stanzas with no sentence marking in which the last word of every line rhymes and the connections of meaning between them vary greatly:

Silent Silent Night
Quench the holy light
Of thy torches bright
.
For possessd of Day
Thousand spirits stray
That sweet joys betray
.
Why should joys be sweet
Used with deceit
Nor with sorrows meet
.
But an honest joy
Does itself destroy
For a harlot coy

.
Note the last word of each line:

Night
light
bright
.
Day
stay
betray
.
sweet
deceit
meet
.
joy
destroy
coy

There are a great many contrasting meanings and emotions in the pairing of some of these words.

stay/betray
sweet/deceit
joy/destroy

The variant spelling of “possessd” in the second stanza was used by Owen in the original. PG is not completely certain why (and perhaps a visitor to TPV will have a better understanding), but he did note an ambiguous middle line of the third stanza – “Used with deceit”.

Traditional English language poetry often includes a regular pattern of stressed and unstressed syllables that create an accentual rhythm. Variations in the regular pattern may be used by the poet to signal an important point or shift in the poem.

Every other line in the Owen poem contains five syllables with a stressed followed by an unstressed syllable ending with a stressed syllable. (a variation on  trochaic dimiter – two manifestations of a trochee plus an additional syllable on each line).

Thusly:

SI.lent SI.lent NIGHT

And later in the poem:

WHY should JOYS be SWEET

But is there a break in the regular meter in the second line of the third stanza?

USED with de.CEIT

Or is the intended pronunciation of the line (important if the poem will be performed aloud) as follows?

US.ed WITH de.CEIT

with Used pronounced with two syllables.
.
Let’s go back to possesd. For the traditional spelling and pronunciation, the regular five-beat stressed/unstressed meter of the remainder of the poem applied to this line would be as follows:

FOR pos.SESSD of DAY

If the customary spelling of possessed had been used, might the performer think possessed should be pronounced with three syllables in the same manner as the word, Used, is pronounced with two syllables to maintain the meter later in the poem. If the three-syllable pronunciation were appropriate, the line would be stressed as follows:

FOR pos.SESS.ed OF day or  FOR pos.SESS.ed of DAY

That seems to be a variation in the standard meter for no good reason.

Additionally, there is a lot of hissing sibilance in the conventional pronunciation of possessed (poSSeSSed). If the last ED syllable had its own beat instead of being a less important d or t sound terminating the sibilance, the overall aural impact of the hissiness of the word is reduced somewhat.

The thousand straying spirits in the following line seem more entrapped by a hissy daylight posssesssed, at least in PG’s mind.

There’s lots more to talk about in this poem (the path from Christmas purity to the company of harlots, for example), but PG will stop now.

Readers who have not had the benefit/curse of an education that included rigorous analysis of the prosody of a great many different poems will understand a bit more about why PG has the mildest objection to the idea expressed in the OP that a poem’s line endings are not all that important.

Amazon carves out more apparel market share

20 April 2018

From Seeking Alpha:

Amazon keeps steadily taking apparel sales away from department and clothing stores.

. . . .

Nowak estimates that Amazon’s market share in apparel rose to 1.5% last year from 1.4% in 2016 to place it second behind only Walmart.

Link to the rest at Seeking Alpha

Per PG’s observations, Amazon’s own branded apparel lines started with Amazon Essentials, which seemed to be made up of clothing that twenty-something Amazon employees (at least of the male persuasion; PG is no expert on female fashion) might wear to work.

Then, Amazon expanded its own offerings with Amazon Fashions, which identified four men’s styles – 1. Cool, 2. Classic, 3. Athleisure and 4. Casual. (PG didn’t see any style called Old) Amazon Fashions included both Amazon-branded clothing called Goodthreads plus selections from third-party clothing manufacturers.

Here’s an example from the Cool collection:


.
Here’s an offering from Athleisure:


.

Suffice to say, it appears Amazon Fashion has left PG in the dust. And in the process has overlooked the ModernMatures, NotDeadYet and GeezerandProud market segments.

« Previous PageNext Page »

WordPress SEO Manager Internet Marketing Tools