Simple explanation
More books in the charity shops tyipcally indicates better sales to begin with. Seeing as more people buy Larsson, Brown, Clarkson, etc. - more people tire of them and ultimately more people pass them on to the charity shops.
The author Brits are most likely to hand to charity store Oxfam is Dan Brown - the man responsible for turgid Vatican romp the Da Vinci Code. The charity's annual list puts Dan Brown in the top spot for the third year running. Climbing from eighth place to number three isTop Gear presenter and curly-haired clown Jeremy …
So where is Terry Pratchett on that list? He's generally a best seller (ok, he's a best stolen, most stolen author....) but it's bloody difficult to find his books unless you're *very* lucky and someone has given their entire collection away (usually due to Death).
The effect is that people don't want to part with stories they love (Harry Potter, Discworld) but give away trash novels that are meh (anything to do with Twilight) and you won't want to read again and again and again (1 book away from finishing my Discworld collection, buggered if I can find the ones I want in a charity shop though).
... because Discworld novels actually have resale value - second hand bookshops know they can pass them through as fast as they come in, so offer more than the usual tuppence-ha'penny a book.
On the other hand, I see almost as many Harry Potter novels in charity shops as I do Twilight. People tend to lose their love of Harry Potter when they discover there are books not written by JK Rowling.
i thought the books were rather good. Good in the sence the entertained me. I am fairly dyslexic and struggle to read for any amount of time, so the short chapters really helped. It was like an action film, say Die Hard 4? Its never going to win an oscar, but entertains.
People are too quick to slag off books like this. They might not be works of art, but i'm fairly certain they aren't meant to be. And sales speak for themselves....
Bah humbug! Over-corperate, with eyewatering senior management costs.
I avoid Oxfam shops these days, prefering local charity shops that have a clear focus and low overheads. Each to their own though.
http://burningourmoney.blogspot.com/2009/11/cost-of-aid-admin.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/aug/04/oxfam-shops-booksellers
I work for a charity. Everyone here works for substantially less than charity sector rates let alone market rates. They also work very hard with many doing a lot of unpaid overtime. I think you're probably slighting a lot of people who work in the charity sector and make a real difference.
People seem to have this silly idea that charities should all be run by OAP volunteers and spend nothing on administration. Why is it silly? because they also want the charity to be effective, efficient, and accountable. That means a heck of a lot of administrative work. Small administrative costs, effective, fully accountable - choose two!
An example - I get people telling me that we should use email rather than print media to communicate with them because it's cheap. I guess that's because they have an experience of sending *an* email. What they don't get is that you have to send someone out to do the interviews, send someone to get the photos. Because some people don't want email we need to get a designer to put the thing together. We then also need to pay the printer and the mailing house - which with bulk discounts cost virtually the same amount as before. I then have to adapt that content for email and send it via a bulk mailing service. You can't send it through outlook as bulk mail gets rejected as spam if you do.
I can give a hundred examples of such complexities and get fed up when people moan about this stuff with no idea of what it really involves or costs to get things done.
I agree with senior executive pay being an issue (it isn't and issue here mind) - but you have to pay people a living wage - they do skilled jobs.
This post has been deleted by its author
It's typical of Oxfam, that they claim all of their money goes for 'good works', yet they can waste time & effort collecting useless information like this.
I gave up being an Oxfam volunteer when I discovered all shop managers had to phone their area managers first thing every Monday with full sales data. WTF is that about?
Twice a year my shop was cleared to enable the *new season* of clothing to put on the racks. Who goes into a south Wales Oxfam to buy summer clothes in February?
What, can anyone tell me ISN'T wrong with the The Da Vinci Code? I can't find anything.
The plot is lifted straight from "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" which is a load of unjustifiable crap invented by two conmen to sell theories to women who don't feel that the Bible is girly enough, the dialogue is APPALLING, the research is non-fucking-existant - he gets the layout of the Louvre wrong when they even have a map online for fuck's sake - and as for "symbology", what is that meant to be?
Semiotics for people stupid enough to buy Dan Brown books?
I despair.
One thinks of the expression "Strictly for hunger" (see Wikipedia). Perhaps Oxfam could market book jackets with that motto?
@NoneSuch: Over Here, operations comparable to Oxfam sell to anybody--the novelist and book dealer Larry McMurtry writes of frequenting the Washington, DC, Goodwill store. One is more likely to deprave the penurious college student--if that can be done (perhaps kids are more innocent now than they were in my college days)--than the truly disfranchised.
I live in a very 'upmarket' part of London. There are several charity shops in the area that had good to excellent quality goods. One, The Red Cross, was particularly good. However, about a year ago it had a very expensive makeover, it now looks like a bit like a 'designer' shop. Obviously thinking of appealing to a more upmarket clientele.
It still has all the same sort of stuff going through it but prices have risen, in some cases by a factor of ten. Result? Hardly anybody goes there...
Bit off topic... sorry. I'll collect my shabby Prada coat...