It is interesting looking at the prices Oxfam charge. In some cases they
obviously have computer literate people checking their stock, in others it
is based on prejudice.

In the first instance, we had a friend in the second hand music business who
found a rare Beatles record in an Oxfam shop. They were charging the top
price for a record of that title but the condition of the LP meant it was
worth a lot less, he informed them of this and they said they had had it
checked by an expert. We had a similar experience in the same shop where
first edition books carried a fine/fine price tag even if they were
ex-library! They obviously had someone who could use the internet to check
prices but didn't know anything about what they were seeing!

In the same shop (and others), however, we have found children's books and
westerns with a very cheap price tag which are very collectable. Clearly in
this instance it is based on prejudice. Of course we don't care because we
can buy them cheap and sell them for a profit.

But in the end, like any business, Oxfam have the right to sell their stock
for the best price they can get. If they sell their stock for the same price
as antiquarian book sellers then normal customer will be happy. It is only
the book dealers who will be unhappy and when have Oxfam had to keep us
sweet!

We don't tend to bother with Oxfam shops much unless we find a very special
title but I have axe to grind. If they can get those prices for their books
good luck to them and it keeps those customers off my back who say "I can
get this book cheaper at a charity shop!" 'cos I can just direct them to
Oxfam and say "be my guest" ;o)

"John Yamamoto-Wilson" wrote in
message ...
On 2003-09-04 at 21:30:16 PST I wrote:

I have only just this minute sent off an e-mail to Oxfam,
with links to the various threads in which we have
been talking about them and inviting them to help us
out where we're making the wrong inferences. Perhaps
they'll be able to clarify all this for us.

I have no wish to resurrect the Oxfam threads (http://tinyurl.com/pwo9,
http://tinyurl.com/pwoj, http://tinyurl.com/pwon,
http://tinyurl.com/pwo4),
but since I had had no reply a month later I contacted Oxfam again, and
got
a reply from Allan Clarke, data manager of the trading division, answering
the points I raised and saying that my first e-mail must have slipped
through the net.

Firstly, he agreed that their shops are not making much more money now
than
ten years ago or so. In fact, he went further and said that in 2000/01
Oxfam's gross income from trading was just £6.2m, little more than a third
of its level in the mid-nineties. The reasons cited were "a tough
combination of changes in retail employment law, sharp rent increases and
an
increase in low-cost retailers".

The following year, Oxfam conducted a comprehensive review, which "led to
our Shop Managers being more empowered to make decisions local to their
shop - as it is our shop managers who know their local markets so well. As
a
result of this, our profits have sharply increased to £15.4m in the
financial year 2002/03" (i.e., profits from shops are back to their level
in
the mid-nineties).

The on-topic part of this posting is the following: "One of the ways we
have
achieved this [i.e., the increase in profits from trading] is by being
trusted by our donors of books to get a decent price for them. This
success
has led to Oxfam becoming the largest second-hand book seller in the
United
Kingdom." He didn't attempt to answer the point about whether their
"collectible" books were always as collectible as they claimed, but he
probably isn't qualified to deal with that issue. From what he says,
though,
it would seem that the shop managers are largely responsible for pricing,
so
I would imagine that would lead to a tremendous amount of local variation.

He went on to say, "As well as being the most profitable charity retailer,
we are also the most efficient at turning sales into contribution. This is
in no small part due to the contribution of time by 23,000 volunteers."

Then came the question of the apparent increase in total Oxfam expenditure
from £11.1m in 96/97 to £74.5m in 2001/02. He explained that the £11.1m
figure does not include retail expenditure, since at that time the law did
not require charities to report that expenditure. "The law changed and now
charities include...shop costs in expenditure, which is why it looks to
have
risen so dramatically."

He wanted to make it clear that the expenses of retail outlets were
financed
entirely out of the income received from shops and money from cash
donations
was completely separate and was never recycled into subsidising the
expenditure on retail outlets. "Somebody giving Oxfam £5 in cash will see
most of that money going to the programme... None of this £5 will go on
shop
costs. If you were to purchase something for £5 in a shop, then shop costs
will come out of this £5."

Anyone wanting further information about any of the above can contact
Oxfam
directly at .

--
John
http://rarebooksinjapan.com