Customer Discussions > The Tales of Beedle the Bard

Is no one even slightly disturbed that Amazon has paid a million pounds for this?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 26-50 of 125 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 14 Dec 2007 11:24:58 GMT
Guy Rogers says, I think it's factastic that Amazon have bouth it and are making so much information about it public. Far better than many of the alternatives!

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Dec 2007 11:26:16 GMT
As Guy Rogers and Mr. C. McMartin say, I think it's factastic that Amazon have bouth it and are making so much information about it public. Far better than many of the alternatives!

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Dec 2007 11:27:57 GMT
But does it only make them look good? Surely if you do good, then you are good, at least in one sense of the word, and don't just look it?

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Dec 2007 11:30:28 GMT
It was, after all, far more (65 times as much, I read) as was expected, and it's amazing that they intend to take it to libraries and places like that to let kids get a first hand look at the book. That is truly amazing!

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Dec 2007 11:33:28 GMT
Last edited by the author on 14 Dec 2007 11:35:22 GMT
M. Buckley says:
Yes it is all very well that the money is going to charity and I know harry potter is a big deal to some people but the matter of fact is, this book went for nearly 2 million pounds and it looks all old and like an antique but she must have wrote it in like the last year so why is it so valuable. By the way its being handled and the way it looks its like ooo dont damage it but its not like its the mona lisa or the venus de milo, those were by people who died years ago and we're not sure who the painting was about and why she was smiling and all that. this book is just an add on from books that cost £10 to buy, just seems a lot of money for nothing but i guess it is amazons profits they can do what they want, as long as they don't up their prices. If the money wasn't going to charity it would have just been a right quick money maker for J.K. Rowling, soon she will write a passage on a napkin and sell it at sotheby's and be able to buy a new house with the money it makes.

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Dec 2007 11:47:20 GMT
at least we mere mortals get to see some fab photo's of the book, which we would never have a chance to see if it went to a private collector. it's a national treasure, and should be seen by all, especially kids. If Amazon can do that, well then - brilliant I say! And the money has gone to a very good cause.

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Dec 2007 12:04:43 GMT
at the end of the day, its Amazons money and as a company they can spend it as they see fit....will they make the money back, almost certainly. I was wondering if they spent this money on a charity auction there is possible a tax implication as well with would benefit them

Its the only way that most people will ever get to see this book so well done Amazon

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Dec 2007 12:15:16 GMT
Cromulent says:
I don't have a problem with it. I think from Amazons point of view it is an excellent way to get their name out their for Christmas (I bet it will be on all the news channels) and also a good way of helping children. From J. K Rowlings point of view she will get to raise the profile of the charity she setup as well as raising her own profile.

Plus the kids benefit hugely. It is win win.

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Dec 2007 13:01:55 GMT
Paul Tipper says:
An understandably cynical attitude on the motives behind this whole thing. But how many of us would have heard anything about this particular charity without such a headline grabbing event. I bet the charity's website has been bombarded since the auction.

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Dec 2007 13:07:54 GMT
M. Pearson says:
At this price, i tghink its highly unlikely this will increase in value - currently, i think there are people out there willing to pay more - it has more market value now, being a charitable item that it will in 15 years+ time, when the name JK, Rowling wont be what it is today. While, yes, it will always be valuable, i think in 15-20 years time, it will probably be worth less than £1 million - maybe around 600,000 probably less.

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Dec 2007 13:16:48 GMT
ryallsy says:
My way of looking at this is not that Amazon have paid £2m for a book. They have donated £2m to a charity, and received a book in return.

It would be interesting to know whether if they had failed to buy the book, they would still have donated the £2m.

Like others here, I think it's great that a public organisation that we all support by giving it our custom, is happy to share some of its profits with us. Much better that than a private colllector making an 'investment'. Not sure what the Amazon shareholders might think though!

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Dec 2007 14:37:31 GMT
CR says:
Sale of Harry Potter probably helped Amazon get where they are today in terms of being the biggest book retailer. They have just donated almost £2million of that profit back to the charity of the author. Good for them.

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Dec 2007 14:42:56 GMT
J. Croombs says:
Amazon have not just paid almost £2m for a book, they have donated £2m to charity, and are now the owners of a legend. The plans to take the book around school are really quite brilliant. Giving children who love the books a chance to see what they can only dream about at the moment is so kind and undoubtedly will make fans of Amazon for years to come.
Thank goodness the brilliance of J.K Rowling will be celebrated by our youth and not left to rot in a rich mans cupboard!

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Dec 2007 14:45:52 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Dec 2007 14:49:09 GMT
A. Steffe says:
I agree with everything you said, but what's her being 'hot' got to do with it? Does that make her sucess even better? More admirable? More surprising?
So glad Amazon bought the book!!!

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Dec 2007 14:50:47 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Dec 2007 15:01:39 GMT
When all is done and dusted, yes, the final achievement is that deprived children are going to be happier thanks to JK and Amazon. In this festive season, when billions are spent in futile goods for the pleasure of an artificial moment under the Xmas tree, if an author devises a clever (and generous) stratagem to
raise funds for a deserving purpose...well then...good on her! and on Amazon!
What then Amazon is going to do with the manuscript, is up to them: I'm sure they've already found an equally deserving purpose, whilst benefiting from all the publicity (they gotta get some points there too, right?)

Merry Xmas!

~K
~

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Dec 2007 15:06:35 GMT
Jiagi says:
Well done J.K, what a great idea to raise money for such a deserving cause, here's to all the children' who'll benefit from the sale.

Congratulations Amazon, thanks for sharing it through the website.

Great to have a good news story at this time of year

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Dec 2007 15:17:17 GMT
Carl says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Dec 2007 15:44:38 GMT
Ullern says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Dec 2007 16:05:19 GMT
No. Why should we be disturbed by Amazon buying the book. As can be seen they are sharing the stories with us. If this had gone to a private collector we wouldn't have an idea what was written in the book.

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Dec 2007 17:16:20 GMT
L. Baldachin says:
You guys don't get it! This is not a BOOK. This is a piece of rare art by a celebrated, still-alive, artist (the medium of the art is irrelevant). It is individually created by hand. Would the market pay £2m for a sketch book of Gaugin's? Without question! Would the market pay £2m for the personal diary of Keith Richards? Probably!!

An auction represents what the general market is prepared to pay for ownership of something, whatever the item. The fact that the money is going to charity is a bonus!

So no, this is not disturbing in the least. I get a little more ticked off about the fact that footballers are paid £millions in annual salary - none of THAT goes straight to charity!!

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Dec 2007 17:27:29 GMT
R. Gambier says:
The book is worth what people will pay for it. Simple as that.

I bet it doubles in value over the next year.

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Dec 2007 17:44:33 GMT
J Clegg says:
M. Buckley, it's worth £2M because someone was willing to pay £2M for it. It is being handled with extreme care in the pictures because its value has been established at £2M.
Amazon didn't buy it because they really wanted a pretty book. They bought it for publicity, and they didn't want the publicity because they're lonely and crave attention. Amazon is a business. They spent £2M on a whole lot of publicity and an asset they will be able to exploit for money or more publicity. Publicity is good for companies. 'Good' publicity, like extravagant purchases at charity auctions, is especially good for companies. They would not have spent the money if they didn't expect a return on the investment.
That doesn't make them bad people; it makes them a business. If businesses went around giving all their profits away without expecting to benefit from it, there'd be a lot of unhappy shareholders in the world.

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Dec 2007 17:46:46 GMT
actually i'm 14 and i care
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Participants:  109
Total posts:  125
Initial post:  14 Dec 2007
Latest post:  16 Jun 2009