It’s not at all unethical as long as the store allows it, hence obviously think it’s in their best interest. A major parisian bookseller, from what I read, increased very significantly its sales (many years ago) when it began to let people read the comics in the store. It costed them some room occupied by the readers, but increased very significantly the number of potential customers entering the store, and at least part of them would buy something.
When I was a teenager, I would go there to read (and essentially never buy) comics. At the time, I doubt it was a good deal for them since they hardly got a cent from me. However, I became accustomed to this store, and now, that generally there that I go to buy books, CDs, etc…and essentially never to their main competitor. So, in the long term their policy was successful.
(and still sometimes read comics that now I buy when I liked them. I essentially never buy a comic without having read and enjoyed it first. Now at least, they’re way more likely to get money from me by letting me read it first).
Anyway, I still wouldn’t think it’s immoral if they didn’t make a cent with such a policy. It’s up to them to decide whether or not to allow it. There’s nothing immoral in doing something you’re allowed to by the owner.
In Australia, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a major bookstore which didn’t go out of it’s way to specifically discourage extended browsing. No chairs, layout so that it’s impossible to sit anywhere without feeling uncomfortable or blocking traffic etc.
How exactly does this whole concept work? What if you take a mag into the cafe and spill some coffee over it? Or smear a bit of chocolate cake on the cover? Are there display copies meant to be read and pristine copies for browsing? Does the store eat the cost of damaged magazines?
Same with books, I don’t want to buy a dogeared, wrinkled book that 10 other people have read cover-to-cover.
On the whole, it works very well. The store takes a very relaxed attitude towards browsing and customers reward the store with their patronage and increased sales.
Customers generally won’t be asked to pay for accidental damage like a coffee spill. If you’re being recklessly selfish you can expect a conversation with a manager about your behavior. It rarely happens though. The biggest problem is just that people are slobs… they don’t damage product, they just never put it back where they found it and they leave their trash all over the store.
If you think an item is too thrashed to be worth the purchase price, you don’t have to buy it. The store will order you a fresh copy from the distro if you want to be sure it hasn’t been handled by strangers. The more messed up stuff is removed from the shelves by employees as it is noticed.
In my experience, people don’t care if magazines are a little used… they’re going to be read once and thrown away anyway.
Ultimately, I’d say it comes down to the store’s policy. If their policy is that you have to buy a magazine before you read it, then that’s it. You’re on their property, and you’re ethically bound to follow their rules. If not, then you’re free to read them.
As Manda JO pointed out, you can go to a library and read the magazines for free, eliminating any chance that you’ll buy them. Clearly, then, there’s nothing inherently wrong with reading a magazine you aren’t going to pay for. The only difference between a magazine at the library and one at a store is that the library has an explicit policy of letting you read things for free; if the store allows you to read magazines before paying for them, they have the same policy, but it’s implicit.
The store puts magazines out for free reading in the expectation that you’ll be enticed to buy them (or something else), but just like a grocery store selling milk below cost to attract customers, they’re taking a calculated risk. They’re telling customers, “We dare you to come in, take advantage of this offer, and leave with nothing else. Our products are so appealing, we think you’ll probably buy something anyway.” And you’re just taking them up on it. If so many people take them up on the offer that it cuts into their profits (i.e. their expectation of how many customers will buy something else turns out to be wrong), they’ll change their policy.
I view it as mildly unethical (*), so I only read mags in stores when I’m in there to buy something else anyway, and would not actually buy the mag (so I’m not costing the store a sale: if they had a rigid no-read policy, I’d just go without), and take care that the mag is as saleable after I’ve read it as before.
With some higher-value items, I’ve sometimes read part or all of the thing and then decided to go ahead and buy it anyway; not always.
(* “Mildly unethical” as in a darning-to-heck transgression, you understand.)
I am sure the store is perfectly happy to eat the cost of damaged magazines. The margin on cafe products is much higher than the margin on magazines. In every B&N that I can think of in NYC, the magazine rack is always located either inside or just adjoining the cafe. The purpose of magazines in these stores is evidently to sell $3 cups of coffee and $3 brownies. A brownie and three cups of coffee probably nets the retailer more than purchasing a dozen magazines.
I don’t understand the fuss. My standard practice when I go to the bookstore (B&N or Borders): grab a few books I’m interested in, find a comfy place (sometimes at the coffee shop inside the store), thumb (gently) through the books, sometimes reading all the interesting stuff (I’m more into non-fiction than fiction), and at the end might buy one or two of the books. More often than not, I walk out without any purchase. I always reshelve the books where I originally found them. I’ve never had any adverse response from the store personnel.
Magazines? I might flip through them while standing and skim an article or two, but I rarely buy magazines at the bookstore. I have subscriptions for all the magazines that I read regularly. None of the bookstores I go to discourages magazine reading.
How could any of the above activities be unethical if the bookstores allow them to happen?
The B&N in Newington, NH was built - and it was built new to house the store - exactly as Ruby said: in order to get to the magazines you must go up three steps above the rest of the floor. The only other thing elevated like that is the cafe immediately adjacent. There are no chairs in the magazine section. The magazine section of the Salem, NH store isn’t raised, but there are no chairs there either. However, the Newington store is one floor and the Salem two, so maybe the difference lies there.
I’m slightly scandalized by people sitting there and reading something they haven’t paid for, since it seems like stealing and ripping legitimate customers off. If one is going to pay the price of a new book, they ought to be the first one to read the book. Given the chairs scattered about the stores, however, it seems as though B&N doesn’t worry that much about it, so… I still don’t like the practice, but I can’t really condemn people for doing something the store encourages. It just makes me more likely to order online (and from Amazon rather than B&N) if there’s a book I want in mint condition.
I’m an avid magazine reader and spend a lot of time in front of magazines stands. I always flip through magazines to see if I interested enough to buy it. I don’t read it in the store. But I do see a lot of people who do. It’s not for me but I never thought of it as unethical. However, I think you’re pretty chintzy if you want to read an article but don’t want to purchase it. I’m more bothered if you park it in front of the bookshelves so I can’t see or reach what’s behind you. Those people should be shot. But I see this in front of regular book shelves as well. I think the bookstores make their establishments a little too comfortable for people sometimes.
As for the argument that it doesn’t hurt the bookstores, that’s probably true. They don’t actually buy the magazines from the publishers. After a certain amount of time, they send the covers back for credit and toss the rest away. At least, that’s how it used to work. But I wonder how much it hurts the publishers. I’m sure Time Warner isn’t sweating bullets if you read Time magazine while having coffee in the cafe area. Nor is Ziff Davis or any of the larger publishers. But the smaller, more specific ones, I worry about. They probably don’t sell that many anyhow. It doesn’t help if people are reading their articles but not purchasing their products.
I wonder if buying online really guarantees you’re getting a mint copy. The brick and mortar stores send books back to the distributor all the time, and there’s no way they’re getting marked as used books just because they spent some time on the shelf. At least a few of those books probably end up getting shipped as web orders.
I think a factor that may play into how the situation is handled, but not necessarily how unethical it may be, is the location. For example, here in the United States, I’ve gone to the magazine stand and read some magazines in depth. When I was in Da Vinci Airport in Roma, I went into a gift shop and picked up a magazine, and started to peruse it. Without thinking much about it, I read a few pages. After a few minutes, the store clerk came over and said something to me, so I put the magazine down and left.
Obviously, whether it’s ethical or not doesn’t change based on where it happened, but I think it’s interesting that he actually said something, whereas I’ve never heard of anyone doing that here in the States. It’s interesting to observe cultural differences such as this.
That happens to magazines, some mass market paperbacks and some other types of books, but most trade paperbacks and hardcovers? Those don’t get turned into strips… those get shipped back to the distro and are still considered new product. They get shipped out to other stores that need them, and I’m guessing are also used to fulfill web orders. Hence buying online not always being a guarantee you’ll get a mint copy.
