1.

Would you consider Encyclopedia Britannica's decision to discontinue printing hardbound

volumes an innovative choice? Why or why not?
Yes, Britannica's decision to stop publishing hardbound volumes is a strategic one. There
is a good chance that their business will go out of business if they keep printing at the same rate
and refuse to alter. Nevertheless, given that they were already aware of its evident and obvious
development in modern society and technology, most people are drawn to it. Some strategies,
which were mostly used before technology had a major impact on society, won't even be
effective in the face of Wikipedia's free and convenient reading and searching capabilities.
Moreover, we are now in the period called the "computer age." Nowadays, people don't
use libraries to conduct research. They use a search engine after connecting to the Internet.
Additionally, there are too many topics to fully cover in traditional encyclopedias. It's a sad day
for people like me who prefer print to laptops, but the corporation made the right choice
because they have to think about their bottom line.

2. What were the disruptors that made the company arrive at this decision? Research if
necessary.
According to Rodeo (2019), when the company's sales model started to fail in 1991,
such disruptions were what led the corporation to make this choice. It was the time when built-
in CD-ROM drives started to come standard on PCs. As the population grew busier, they ran out
of time to entertain those who were hawking goods at their doorsteps. Their revenue began to
decline. Britannica created a CD-ROM encyclopedia in 1994 for $1,200. But suddenly, a new
issue appeared. Microsoft and Intel computers work together. Customers would choose to buy
the bundle over buying Britannica's CD-ROM separately since it combined the PC and CD-ROM.
Years later, when the CD-ROM was interrupted by the internet, Britannica seized the chance to
get their business back on track.
Wikipedia, PCs with CDs, and digital technology indicate that while there may not be as
many, there are already enough to eventually bring down the Encyclopedia Britannica.
Its legacy extends across decades, countries, and time, from the founding of America to
the end of the Enlightenment. It serves as a record of humankind's achievements in conflict and
peace, in the arts and sciences, and in exploration and discovery. It is regarded as the whole of
human knowledge. It's currently out of print. After 244 years, several editions, and more than 7
million sets sold, the Encyclopedia Britannica has declared that no future editions will be
printed.
It turns out that the 32 volumes of the 2010 edition were the final. Future issues will
only be available online. The news may make some readers uneasy about the direction this age
has taken. Others may wonder why it took the dinosaur so long to perish in the Wikipedia age.
Neither viewpoint does the company or the crossroads justice.

3. Do you think people will still use Encyclopedia Britannica even if it is not hardbound anymore?
Provide points that prove people would prefer Encyclopedia Britannica over Wikipedia and
other websites or the other way around
In my opinion, yes.
Points that prove people would prefer Encyclopedia Britannica over Wikipedia
 The legitimacy of the encyclopedia is one reason why some individuals, students, and
professors still choose it over Wikipedia. As you may also search on Wikipedia, some
information there might not be accurate after all, as it can be readily altered to contain incorrect
ideas or facts. Additionally, the encyclopedia was reviewed before it was released, making it the
most trustworthy and reliable source of information and perhaps possessing more truth and
expertise than Wikipedia.
Every major subject is covered in detail in the Encyclopedia Britannica. It serves the ideal
function of a reference work as a starting point or a source to consult while you read and write.
Authors that can be identified and trusted have written the entries in Britannica. Numerous
articles provide citations for books and other literature on the subject. The length of the articles
is edited with the intention of giving students (and other scholars) enough basic knowledge
without overloading them. Encyclopedias are more effective at giving background knowledge
than at offering in-depth analysis or fresh viewpoints.
Points that prove people would prefer Wikipedia over Encyclopedia Britannica
It seems clear, useful, and free to me. As opposed to utilizing the Encyclopedia, which is
pricey to use for knowledge, I would choose the choice that is the easiest to use and won't cost
me any money. Additionally, its references could guide us to other sources and help us find the
data we require. The most used website for word and other item searches is Wikipedia. It is
well-known, simple to use, and available whenever there is an internet connection. Additionally,
it is practical because carrying a heavy book with 32 volumes is no longer necessary. Therefore,
Wikipedia is preferable to Encyclopedia Britannica.