Barnes & Noble Goes All In on LEGO Batman

This content has been archived. It may no longer be accurate or relevant.

From Investopedia:

In order to survive, Barnes & Noble needs to become more than just a bookstore — and be seen that way by consumers.

The company has embraced that idea by moving aggressively into the specialty toy space and by courting the maker community. Those two areas overlap, at least when it comes to LEGOS.

While the plastic bricks are clearly toys, they are also educational, teaching kids to build, to think creatively, and allowing for imaginative play once the building has finished. That’s a different learning model than reading, but it’s something the chain has embraced with in-store events.

Now Barnes & Noble has partnered with Time Warner and The LEGO Group for a three-month celebration of the upcoming animated LEGO Batman Movie.

. . . .

In theory, by having a three-month promotion with different events, kids will push their parents to bring them to the bookseller multiple times. That might be more tolerable to the adults than most kids events because Batman is a character that appeals to all ages and the first LEGO Movie was popular with grownups as well.

Barnes & Noble has planned trading card giveaways on Feb. 25 and March 11. In addition the chain is incentivizing people to go to all three special events by offering all six collectible cards to anyone who does.

. . . .

The LEGO Batman Movie looks to be a near-certain blockbuster for the same reasons the first LEGO Movie was a hit. Parents aren’t opposed to seeing it (and may even enjoy it), which makes them willing to take their kids.

This promotion should effectively piggyback off that, which will bring much-needed foot traffic into Barnes & Noble locations. Three months might be a little bit long for any promotion, but parents of young kids are often looking for free events to entertain them, and it’s easy to see some taking advantage of this.

Link to the rest at Investopedia and thanks to Dave for the tip.

42 thoughts on “Barnes & Noble Goes All In on LEGO Batman”

  1. The last time I wandered into a Barnes & Noble, looking to buy a couple of paperbacks to read on vacation, the whole bottom floor was toys and games. I had to go through the store and up an escalator to find actual books. I don’t know if it’s a coincidence, but I haven’t been back to a B&N since…

    • I’m a bit boggled that the place you went into has more than one floor. Just..wow, that’s a lot of space. And then to think all the main level stuff is junk *boggles more*.

  2. Erm, so Walmart, Target, Toys R Us and Amazon WON’T be stocking these legos?

    Because I have to pass all three stores before I get to a BN. And of course, I can just stay home and order what I want from Amazon.

    Why would I want to go to BN for toys?

    Call me crazy but I think a BOOK STORE should…I dunno…maybe sell…BOOKS?!!!

    • Call me crazy but I think a BOOK STORE should…I dunno…maybe sell…BOOKS?!!!

      You are, indeed, crazy. Books aren’t drawing enough customers or making them enough money.

      The problem is, neither is “other merchandise.” In the last “ouch” message from B&N, they mentioned that sales in the gift category were down. While it’s true that there is probably better margin there, there’s still plenty of price competition.

      It’s just a matter of time. Over at the-digital-reader, Nate speculates that B&N might just sell what’s left of the Nook to Kobo. I find that a very interesting idea.

      • But they always intended to become a broader retailer. They chose books as their first product line fairly cold-bloodedly: small, easy to ship, not well served online yet, and (wait for it) they already came with SKU numbers: the ISBN.

        And Bezos like to read.

        But it really was fairly arbitrary.

      • And still is. It sells more books than ever, whether measured by units sold, dollar value, or number of titles offered. You can’t say the same for B&N.

      • Amazon *added* products to their book sales–B&N is reducing book shelfspace in favor of toys and tchotchkes.
        Big difference.

        • Well, that’s inherent in the B&M model. There’s no way around it. Diversifying inventory means having less of a specific category.

          • And the advantage of an online or hybrid (ship to store, etc) model is greatly expanded shelf-space.
            It’s not so much which game you play as how you play it.

            • Yeah, but that game is already lost. Amazon has won, and will continue winning until they start making mistakes. There is no ground to gain, because B&N isn’t large enough to compete on price.

              B&N is, understandably, trying to carve out a niche in which to survive.

      • Never bought a book at Target. I did buy some at the local grocery store – Tom Clancy novels, when he was actually writing them.

        But I wasn’t there for books, I was there for groceries, which was the store’s main reason for business. I bought those MMPBs because they were where I was already shopping for other things (and because they had a 10% discount on their books, which I didn’t get at the bookstores).

        I do remember picking up a couple of things at Borders way back when that were not books, other media, or reading related (like clip-on lights) – but I was there to buy books, for some strange reason, not the other stuff.

        B & N may survive as a business by being a wine bar, a coffee shop, a toy store, a whatever. But that will make them a coffee shop, a toy store, a whatever – not a bookstore.

        • Ok. I’m not seeing your point, I guess? B&N doesn’t care how they survive, and I’m sure their stockholders don’t either. B&N is trying to become a specialized retailer, which makes perfect sense. They know as well as anyone that big box bookstores aren’t going to make it. Only publishers don’t know that.

          • My point is that, so long as they think their business is to get people into the store to buy books – by making books the least important part of their stores – they are going to fail.

            Target sells books, yes – as does WalMart, and even my local Frys (Kroger to those in other regions). That is not their main business – and they don’t operate as if it is.

            B & N can survive, but not by being a wine bar one place, a coffee shop the next, a gadgets store elsewhere, each of which incidentally also sells books – unless they make that their business model. A specialty retailer where there are already other competitors that were formed to and have experience in being those things. This is a stiff order, but doable if they recognize that they are no longer a bookstore company.

            • I don’t think at executive levels they think they are a book retailer as much as a specialty retailer (books being one of the specialties). All of their decisions over the past three years scream this.

              And, unlike publishers, they have some of the same data Amazon does. They’ve known for quite a while that a large percentage of their book sales are middle grade and lower.

      • It’s cheaper? And people who’ve been drinking and eating haven’t managed to muck them up?

        I used to buy books at Walmart because there wasn’t anyplace else in my area. No bookstores closer than 30 miles, no online shopping in those days. It wasn’t ideal, because the selection wasn’t that great, but a reader does what she has to do (the library was on a freeze, only getting those ten copies of whatever Hollywood glitz romance crap that others wanted to read).

  3. If this type of piggy backing on the next big movie is the future of Barnes and Noble, I might not want to see the front window when the 50 Shades film sequel comes out…

  4. I think they are past the rubicon for saving the store. If they had embraced indies, and put the top 100 Nook sellers on the shelves next to regular authors, maybe it would have saved them. Maybe…

    • What is bandied about is that they need to find a way out of their large stores into smaller stores. I personally don’t think they could turn themselves into a company of small stores. Instead, they are just going to decline, closing stores as they go. Smaller bookstores will open up here and there in the neighborhoods that can support them. They won’t make enough money to support a publicly held company, but they’ll mostly manage.

      One thing I see lately when I examine articles about bookstores going out of business is just how many owners are closing down because they can’t realize any profits and can’t sell the business. “Nobody wanted to buy” – “All the offers fell through”, etc, etc, and that is for small, supposedly sustainable bookstores. An inability to find a greater fool to take over is a bad sign for that business model.

  5. Data Guy’s presentation makes it pretty apparent that the only future print books have is Children’s books. Expanding the product line to include more kids products makes sense. Barnes and Nobel is a retailer first and a book store second. They have been for 20 years.

    Barnes and Nobel is basically going to try to become Toys’r’Us for educated people, with more to offer parents while their kids are shopping.

    • I vaguely remember a chain called LITTLE PROFESSOR. Kids books and educational toys. Didn’t last long in my neighborhood.
      And that was before online competition.

      • That was a franchise operation. I worked at a family-owned one in the late 1990s. The relationship between the parent company and the franchisees was never good and eventually some of the more successfully locations broke off and became indies. I doubt there are many of them left. The one I worked at went under after they had to move to a less desirable neighborhood and then a Borders opened nearby. The Borders, of course, is gone now too.

  6. Yeah, I have no recollection of such a chain, so it couldn’t have been very big, or already had the built in brand recognition and good will of a Barnes and Noble. There is a whole generation of people raising children right now that grew up with B&N as a major brand.

    B&N can never be what it was, it can never be big, dominant, etc. I don’t think anyone, even publishers, think they can. But they can be relevant, and survive, as a specialty retailer.

    • The reason you don’t remember them and why I brought them up is because there was no significant market for that product mix.
      Children’s books in bookstores, yes.
      Educatiobal toys and games in toy stores, yes.
      But neither drew enough traffic alone or combined.
      And that was before online.

      It isn’t just dept stores that are under pressure today; it is all of B&M that needs to up their game. That includes “specialty” retailers, from toys, to office supplies, to clothes, and housewares.

      Pivoting from one failing dry goods market to another isn’t going save anybody.

      • Again, you’re talking about a start up, not a company with a legacy brand name like Barnes & Noble, which, outside of indie author circles, is both well known AND valuable as a brand.

        • Brand loyalty is important.
          But it only gets you so far.
          Their brand equity is as a bookstore, not as a specialty upscale toy store.

          B&N’s brand helped launch Nook but it hasn’t done much to slow the death spiral. And it hasn’t done much to stop the steady decline of their B&M business. Their last financial report openly admitted toys and trinkets hasn’t been a big boost, hence their pivot to restaurants.

  7. I can’t imagine wanting to see a LEGO Batman movie. Who greenlights these ridiculous movie concepts, anyway?

Comments are closed.