At the most recent Society of Bookmen event, two senior book trade figures debated the question of whether buying books centrally is bad for business. In a departure from the norms, the full text of the speeches made by Willie Anderson, Deputy Chairman at John Smith (who argued for the motion) and Cathy Ferrier, Commercial Director at Borders (who argued against) is available online, but Publishing News has the salient points.

The gist of Anderson's argument was that "Central buying sends out several messages. One: this is what you are going to sell whether you like it or not. Two: we don't trust you in your shop to know what you should be selling. Three: we know your local market better than you do. Four: we know your local solicitor better than you do. Five: we can manage your stock better from the centre. Six: we can organise the promotions better than you can from the centre. Seven: you're a manager, yes, but you are really only there to switch the lights on and off and to relay the team messages to your team. Eight: if the books don't sell, it is your fault because you weren't committed to them."

Ferrier countered with the following: "The homogeneity and dullness of some new release book tables is considerably less to do with the rigours of central buying and more to do with the lack of innovation in promotional mechanics employed by some chains. In conclusion, central buying is the only viable way to ensure the huge breadth of assortment and full range availability, and does not preclude stores holding local titles, targeted specifically at their market. Central buying enables front line, creative bookselling."

But what do you think? Send additional comments our way and we'll run them this afternoon...