Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 cincydooley wrote:

 the_Armyman wrote:

It was a metaphor for how I view KS. It had nothing to do with charity. You and cincydooley must have gone to the same school district.

If we did, it must have been the same one that taught us that your example wasn't a metaphor.

Nope, my example is a metaphor. I dun lukd it up.

You make a pretty clear claim that people backed KS "for the feels."

I very plainly stated that if you were in giving money away "for the feels" then charity, not KS, is the appropriate avenue to do so.

Nope, my metaphor was in using three different bums on the street to represent the three different types of KickStarters I tend to see. The "feels" that you seem fixated on was the reward for the "pledge." In a real KS, there is no person sitting on the street with a mug. The "mug" is their KS account. Though you may get feels from your reward, it is not the actual thing you are backing. Were there other parts of my metaphor that were confusing to you? PM me and I'll take time out of my day to help you understand more clearly.

You made a false claim that you were just using a metaphor (which, if we're being technical, would have been a conceit based on the length of your not-metaphor).

What? A conceit? Is that like a metaphor? Or is it a not-metaphor? Hmm, the Oxford English Dictionary seems to think a conceit is a type of metaphor.

Now we're here.

Indeed. Are there any grammar problems you noticed in my post? Because when you have nothing to contribute to a thread, the very least you can be is (incorrectly) pedantic about something that has nothing to do with the topic, amirite?

I bet it was a Parable.

Of course, I don't think that Privateer Press are pretending to be poor- they're just selling a game, and they're plenty up front about it.

In this case, I believe that Privateer Press is trying to break into a new market. They're experimenting with Kickstarter to see if it will help them break into the larger board game audience who are not currently playing Privateer Press' games.

They've had this attitude for a long time (they first announced it when they were selling Monsterpocalypse). They want different audiences for different games, not just the same blokes moving back and forth between their properties.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

I'd wager a good 20-30% of Kickstarters should never be allowed to run in the first place.

We have real statistics on this! The University of Pennsylvania did the research, and it is good stuff. According to them, only 9% of Kickstarters fail to deliver.

What we don't have numbers for are the kickstarters that delivered but lost money (like Kingdom Death: Monster- fantastic game, by the way).



Another note- Gary Ray's anti-kickstarter blog posts do not apply to Privateer Press.

No, Gary is totally fine with stocking games kickstarted by well established large companies. Presumably, his sales of CMON games have been solid. So he'll be stocking Widower's Wood even though it was a kickstarted project (and as a retailer, he ought to stock things he thinks will sell).

The games that he is not stocking are the ones that probably could never have existed without Kickstarter- the small companies using Kickstarter to fund their for the love projects out of their garages.

You know- the ones that we all say "That's what Kickstarter is really for!" Those are the games he has a problem with.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 the_Armyman wrote:


A healthy company doesn't borrow money.

This is only true for a lot of very small businesses (like mine).

However, that's not how it works in the world these days. Huge companies like, say Walmart, do not operate in the black. They borrow money every year to cover their routine operations. They operate in the red for most of the year, and are only operating in the black for the end of the year (approximately Black Friday onward).

That's why the real estate industries bubble burst was able to sink all of our economies in 2008 (ie, banks had less money to loan out, so all big businesses were effected).

You'd think that business loans are for starting up a business, but large companies will especially do whatever the market rewards.

 odinsgrandson wrote:

In this case, I believe that Privateer Press is trying to break into a new market. They're experimenting with Kickstarter to see if it will help them break into the larger board game audience who are not currently playing Privateer Press' games.

They've had this attitude for a long time (they first announced it when they were selling Monsterpocalypse). They want different audiences for different games, not just the same blokes moving back and forth between their properties.

I think games companies should just realize that they're games companies and not try to market much beyond their niche. There is no mass market appeal to these hobbies. They're esoteric, they're analog, they attract a predominately white, male, middle to upper class demo. You can make vidya games and licensed tabletop games from blockbuster, Hollyood movies, and you're barely going to move the needle. GW's the top dog, hitched their wagon to a multi-biliion dollar franchise, and where is their Lord of the Rings line now?

Another note- Gary Ray's anti-kickstarter blog posts do not apply to Privateer Press.

No, Gary is totally fine with stocking games kickstarted by well established large companies. Presumably, his sales of CMON games have been solid. So he'll be stocking Widower's Wood even though it was a kickstarted project (and as a retailer, he ought to stock things he thinks will sell).

The games that he is not stocking are the ones that probably could never have existed without Kickstarter- the small companies using Kickstarter to fund their for the love projects out of their garages.

You know- the ones that we all say "That's what Kickstarter is really for!" Those are the games he has a problem with.

I don't know Gary Ray personally, but I'd be more than happy to read blog posts or trade articles written by other hobby retailers who wholeheartedly endorse KS as a part of their business.

odinsgrandson wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 the_Armyman wrote:


A healthy company doesn't borrow money.

This is only true for a lot of very small businesses (like mine).

However, that's not how it works in the world these days. Huge companies like, say Walmart, do not operate in the black. They borrow money every year to cover their routine operations. They operate in the red for most of the year, and are only operating in the black for the end of the year (approximately Black Friday onward).

That's why the real estate industries bubble burst was able to sink all of our economies in 2008 (ie, banks had less money to loan out, so all big businesses were effected).

You'd think that business loans are for starting up a business, but large companies will especially do whatever the market rewards.

So, you mention that big business uses loans all the time, then you say that the bursting of a financial bubble almost caused the whole thing to collapse in on itself. Yup, business as usual sounds very healthy! Just because borrowing at 3% interest means you can invest the money in a financial vehicle that makes a 20% return before you need to pay the loan back, doesn't mean it's a smart thing to do. The big boys can get away with because of the ridiculous fiscal gymnastics they can manage.

The "a healthy business doesn't borrow money" comment mainly applies to small businesses like yours and PP's. It's not a sustainable business model to borrow in the spring with the hopes of a good harvest in the fall. Our grandparents knew this, we know this. A healthy company is healthy because it has no debt. PP can afford to develop a boardgame on their own dime. They choose not to because there are enough people that will throw money at them on KS.

Hoo boy, I can see the replies just rolling in, telling me how ignorant and ill-informed I must be

 the_Armyman wrote:

 odinsgrandson wrote:

In this case, I believe that Privateer Press is trying to break into a new market. They're experimenting with Kickstarter to see if it will help them break into the larger board game audience who are not currently playing Privateer Press' games.

They've had this attitude for a long time (they first announced it when they were selling Monsterpocalypse). They want different audiences for different games, not just the same blokes moving back and forth between their properties.

I think games companies should just realize that they're games companies and not try to market much beyond their niche. There is no mass market appeal to these hobbies. They're esoteric, they're analog, they attract a predominately white, male, middle to upper class demo. You can make vidya games and licensed tabletop games from blockbuster, Hollyood movies, and you're barely going to move the needle. GW's the top dog, hitched their wagon to a multi-biliion dollar franchise, and where is their Lord of the Rings line now?

Well you certainly have the right attitude to work for Games Workshop. This right here is why they are treading water at best and sinking at worst. If you restrict yourself to a narrow market then you've also capped your growth. And should your narrow market disappear then you vanish as well.

 the_Armyman wrote:
and where is their Lord of the Rings line now?

They killed it by halving the contents of the boxes for the same price and not supporting it. It was a great game the community loved and drew in TONS of new people. I joined the hobby because I saw an add on TV for it through the partner magazine they had going. This was also during GWs biggest period of growth. They reached beyond their narrow niche and their popularity EXPLODED thanks to LotR.

More like half the numbers at a higher price, with a few questionable sculpts/paint jobs on the box art.

without advertising and means to reach people who would be interested too.

De agostini is the main reason many people learned about GW and played LOTR, its entirely GWs fault on not retaining the customers.

It's a hobby, it's not a mass market product. D&D (another product that has had movie and video game tie-ins) has been around for over 40 years and it's IP is owned by one of the largest toy companies in the world. It's still not available in Walmart. I would imagine this is not for a lack of trying, but rather, it doesn't appeal to a mass market audience. It never will. Why continue to pound that square peg into a round hole? For every given luxury/niche product, there will be portions of the population who either can not afford it, or it simply does not appeal to them.

But discussing the marketing habits of hobby companies has nothing to do with the topic that PP should use its own money to fund its own pet projects.

Except D&D IS sold at Walmart and GW stuff used to be.

I can't speak to D&D, but I know X wing is sold in a ton of stores you can find even remotely nerdy stuff in but can't buy a GW product in here down in Australia.

Zatsuku wrote:Except D&D IS sold at Walmart and GW stuff used to be.

I've never seen a GW product in a Walmart or any other big box store. If it was in your Walmart at some point, okay then. Perhaps the store managers are given some leeway in carrying products outside of the normal supply chain, and the manager in your local store had a kid who was into Warhammer, so he thought he'd give the line a try.

jonolikespie wrote:I can't speak to D&D, but I know X wing is sold in a ton of stores you can find even remotely nerdy stuff in but can't buy a GW product in here down in Australia.

Let's be real: you could lay a turd, get it officially licensed by Disney as a Star Wars product, and someone would buy it. This has less to do with it being a tabletop game than it does with the ubiquitousness of the Star Wars brand. PP will never have this advantage.

Zatsuku wrote:
Except D&D IS sold at Walmart and GW stuff used to be.

This is not really a good thing, though. Selling RPGs and wargames through Walmart, Toys-R-US, etc. deprives specialty stores of the sales, and it's a hard enough slog as it is. The bigger stores that have a lot of other things treat these like toys and heavily discount them, making it really tough for hobby shops and gaming stores to compete.

As Armyman put it, stamp Star Wars onto just about anything, and it will sell. It doesn't matter if it's a lunch box, board game, robot, flying drone, or Halloween costume, so Star Wars is just not a good comparative, because there are literally no other scifi properties like it.

 Talys wrote:
This is not really a good thing, though. Selling RPGs and wargames through Walmart, Toys-R-US, etc. deprives specialty stores of the sales, and it's a hard enough slog as it is. The bigger stores that have a lot of other things treat these like toys and heavily discount them, making it really tough for hobby shops and gaming stores to compete.

Walmart sells MTG and Pokemon and you don't see the FLGS mtg/pokemon sales devestated. On top of that, its possible to restrict what portions of the line that big boxes carry. Need to buy add-ons? The customer needs to go FLGS or direct.

My first GW game purchase was Space Crusade- a joint project by GW and MB that got into bigger stores (along with Heroquest).

The LGS isn't the only way to get into the hobby- especially for a younger audience (ie, one that will be interested in Pokemon).

I mean- how many of your 30-something game store regulars do you really think go looking for new games at Walmart?

If you can get your board game into Toys R Us, then do it- you'll sell more copies and expose the game to a completely different audience. You can potentially expand the hobby.


Back on topic-

Privateer Press has their core audience and they don't want to compete with themselves all the time, so they want their board games and RPGs to have appeal outside of their Warmachine audience.

I think they've been looking at CMON for a while, and how their kickstarter projects seem to do well in the LGS (I have found this true in reports and anecdotes).

There are a lot of people playing miniatures board games right now who don't play Warmachine. The main market for this is Kickstarter- so that's where they're going with it.


Makes plenty of sense to me. Kickstarter has long since stopped being only a place for startup companies. But if we want to get angry that a company that isn't just starting up is using Kickstarter- well, that's fine too. There's plenty of rage to go around about Kickstarter.

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal, but PP may be in more trouble then we think. My local store just moved WMH to 40% clearance and there as many people playing AoS in the store as WMH. The Infinity group I'm in now is made up of a good number of ex-WMH players.

And my store isn't the only one. Per Gary Ray's blog (since we're linking him again ):
http://blackdiamondgames.blogspot.com/2016/01/report-to-stakeholders-2015.html

Losers included Tactical Miniature Games, which were down 1%. We announced yesterday we're dropping Warmachine and Hordes from the store, which performed terribly in 2015 (1 turn, for those who do inventory management). This was due to poor events, increased competition, and a change in the game meta that turned off a lot of casual players. I regret having to let it go and I will absolutely consider bringing it back, if circumstances change. It's on sale in the store right now at 40% off.

A strong Warhammer 40K revival is why this category is only down 1% and we'll be shifting inventory dollars in that direction, although there's not a lot we need. I never thought I would consider Games Workshop a worthy partner, but after the turmoil of 2015, they're a safe bet. Also, as a suburban store that caters to casual players, it makes no sense for us to chase smaller, specialty miniature games. It took a decade to realize that and the help of retailer friends.

Being a Local, the reason he is loosing money is that he WAY overstocks his stuff. and that he dislikes competitveness and hear in the bay WM/H is all about being competitive, and he is known for running piss poor events
I know gary, the reason he dislikes KS is that it competes with him He is so full of himself he belives every competitor is trying to steal and cheat.

In my opinion, dropping WMH makes no sense at all. Even if it's a poor performer, fire sale all the old inventory at 35%, keep the new inventory for the shelf (it will sell eventually), keep the paint shelf, and put up a sign the says you'll order anything for 25% off MSRP prepaid.

There's no downside at all, since it all comes from distribution, and there aren't any stocking requirements.

Yeah- Warmachine is doing well locally (in the three stores around here).

One of them pretty much only does Talys' method (ie, the store has almost no stock, but customers order loads of stuff through them at a discount).

They're maintaining a much stronger presence than Infinity.


Now- Gary should appeal to his local patrons, and not follow internet lore of what 'ought' to be popular. If they've all moved away from Warmachine, then he really shouldn't be trying to push it.

Now, if his attitude towards the game has made all of those customers move to other stores with a more welcoming atmosphere to their preferred gaming style, that's another thing entirely.

 Talys wrote:
In my opinion, dropping WMH makes no sense at all. Even if it's a poor performer, fire sale all the old inventory at 35%, keep the new inventory for the shelf (it will sell eventually), keep the paint shelf, and put up a sign the says you'll order anything for 25% off MSRP prepaid.

There's no downside at all, since it all comes from distribution, and there aren't any stocking requirements.

There most certainly is a downside... And it's a bit of a catch 22: He still winds up with money tied up in product that isn't moving, while not having a full product range on the shelf means that at least some of the customers that he might otherwise have got are just going to order from an online store instead rather than bother coming to the store to place an order.

Balancing out potential sales against the cost of keeping product on the shelf is a bit of an arcane art, and has been the undoing of many a hobbyist-turned-storeowner.

I think that making money off WMH requires either a good customer base or an understanding of what models sell readily. It's a huge range at this point, but only about 40% makes into most tournament lists.

If you don't go big, you need to keep a finger on the scene to stock the stuff people buy. Far too many stores have only niche units on the shelf...

 odinsgrandson wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

I'd wager a good 20-30% of Kickstarters should never be allowed to run in the first place.

We have real statistics on this! The University of Pennsylvania did the research, and it is good stuff. According to them, only 9% of Kickstarters fail to deliver.

Thanks for sharing that! I am surprised it is only 9%, but looking over my pledges that actually checks out. I have backed 15 (+1) KS. 5 pledges I either dropped out of or the campaign didn't fund. Of the remaining 10 (+ 1 for a pledge I bought off another backer and had the pledge transferred to my name by the project creator) I've had one fail to fulfill entirely.

Interesting too that the fail rate remains consistent throughout the various project categories.

 odinsgrandson wrote:

Now, if his attitude towards the game has made all of those customers move to other stores with a more welcoming atmosphere to their preferred gaming style, that's another thing entirely.

Pretty much this, he shows active disdain for customers who play competitively.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 odinsgrandson wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

I'd wager a good 20-30% of Kickstarters should never be allowed to run in the first place.

We have real statistics on this! The University of Pennsylvania did the research, and it is good stuff. According to them, only 9% of Kickstarters fail to deliver.

Thanks for sharing that! I am surprised it is only 9%, but looking over my pledges that actually checks out. I have backed 15 (+1) KS. 5 pledges I either dropped out of or the campaign didn't fund. Of the remaining 10 (+ 1 for a pledge I bought off another backer and had the pledge transferred to my name by the project creator) I've had one fail to fulfill entirely.

Interesting too that the fail rate remains consistent throughout the various project categories.

It is important to remember that there's a difference between 'failing to deliver' and 'failing to fully deliver', 'failing to meet expectations', 'failing to make a profit', and 'failing to be a good experience'.

The latter four are, I daresay, more common than completely failing to deliver. It is a little unclear how the research defined 'failed to deliver', although it looks like not receiving all of your rewards might have been captured in that data set. However, I would not take that as gospel.

In any case, failing to meet expectations seems like a comparatively more common occurrence, and especially failing to make a profit. I have heard of precious few Kickstarter campaigns that have been financially beneficial to the project creator, and 9 out of 10 project creators I have talked to have disliked the Kickstarter experience, even if they have done multiple Kickstarter campaigns and have plans to continue to do so.

That is something we should all be thinking about. I want to see games that continue to be supported, and companies that stick around to support them.

As much as I am dubious about CMoN, the company supports the crap out of Zombicide, and I have routinely had positive experiences with both the products and the Kickstarter campaigns. But most other times this is not the case.

Take Shadows of Brimstone as an example. The campaign was caustic, to say the least, the production quality of the models was atrocious, and Flying Frog has provided precious little post-campaign support for the game. Flying Frog is an okay company, right, but I don't think the Shadows Kickstarter was terribly 'good' for the community or the market.

And the list of examples is long, from the clusterfeth that was Sedition Wars in the early days to the ongoing clusterfeth that is AVP.

weeble1000 wrote:


It is important to remember that there's a difference between 'failing to deliver' and 'failing to fully deliver', 'failing to meet expectations', 'failing to make a profit', and 'failing to be a good experience'.

The latter four are, I daresay, more common than completely failing to deliver. It is a little unclear how the research defined 'failed to deliver', although it looks like not receiving all of your rewards might have been captured in that data set. However, I would not take that as gospel.

The researcher defined a fail as:

The core question behind the professor’s research was whether a creator delivered rewards as promised — not whether the creative work was actually made. For example, if a creator successfully finished a film funded through Kickstarter but backers didn’t get a copy of their DVD, the project was counted as “failed.”

I don't find anything problematic with that definition.

Are you suggesting that a partially fulfilled campaign is a success?

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
The researcher defined a fail as:

The core question behind the professor’s research was whether a creator delivered rewards as promised — not whether the creative work was actually made. For example, if a creator successfully finished a film funded through Kickstarter but backers didn’t get a copy of their DVD, the project was counted as “failed.”

I don't find anything problematic with that definition.

Are you suggesting that a partially fulfilled campaign is a success?

He's suggesting that an incompetently fulfilled campaign should not be treated as a success. If someone bought a regiment of Mantic's Basilean Men At Arms and literally got Chinese knockoffs being passed off as the real thing, I would call that a failure even if it fulfilled the letter of the law.

Yeah, Technically the Dust Kick start under those would be considered a success.
MY problem with KS is the fact that it takes the risk away from companies and puts it on the customer.

 AlexHolker wrote:


He's suggesting that an incompetently fulfilled campaign should not be treated as a success. If someone bought a regiment of Mantic's Basilean Men At Arms and literally got Chinese knockoffs being passed off as the real thing, I would call that a failure even if it fulfilled the letter of the law.

I am not familiar with the Basilean issue, so can't comment on that, but if a product changes post-campaign so drastically that backers are unsatisfied that campaign certainly isn't a success but I don't think that is accurate to classify it a failure either. Really, it is a failure on the project creator's part to meet the expectations of his or her investors.

If the backers got something resembling what they pledged for then isn't that part of the "magic" of Kickstarter? As members on here so haughtily like to remind people Kickstarter isn't a pre-order system, it is an investment to bring an idea to life, so as long as you received a return on your investment the campaign is technically a success, as the campaign fulfilled its promise to backers.

 insaniak wrote:

 Talys wrote:
In my opinion, dropping WMH makes no sense at all. Even if it's a poor performer, fire sale all the old inventory at 35%, keep the new inventory for the shelf (it will sell eventually), keep the paint shelf, and put up a sign the says you'll order anything for 25% off MSRP prepaid.

There's no downside at all, since it all comes from distribution, and there aren't any stocking requirements.

There most certainly is a downside... And it's a bit of a catch 22: He still winds up with money tied up in product that isn't moving, while not having a full product range on the shelf means that at least some of the customers that he might otherwise have got are just going to order from an online store instead rather than bother coming to the store to place an order.

Balancing out potential sales against the cost of keeping product on the shelf is a bit of an arcane art, and has been the undoing of many a hobbyist-turned-storeowner.

I think you misunderstand -- just don't keep anything on the shelf, and essentially turn the Privateer Press part of the business into a discount mail-order desk, with the exception of stuff like hobby tools and paints, that are supplies which will move. The only items I was suggesting to leave on the shelf was the stuff he already had that didn't survive the fire sale Brick & Mortar stores can undersell online stores (or at least be competitive) because the marginal cost of the special order item is zero -- they're ordering from the distributor for other stuff anyhow. So even if you're only making $2 on a blister, well, it was $2 more than you were going to make. It's literally zero risk, because you make all the people who aren't regulars prepay for everything (the trade-off for a nice discount).

And if they're not ordering anything from the distributor on a regular basis, well, they're not going to stay in business long

 Talys wrote:

I think you misunderstand -- just don't keep anything on the shelf, and essentially turn the Privateer Press part of the business into a discount mail-order desk, with the exception of stuff like hobby tools and paints, that are supplies which will move. The only items I was suggesting to leave on the shelf was the stuff he already had that didn't survive the fire sale Brick & Mortar stores can undersell online stores (or at least be competitive) because the marginal cost of the special order item is zero -- they're ordering from the distributor for other stuff anyhow. So even if you're only making $2 on a blister, well, it was $2 more than you were going to make. It's literally zero risk, because you make all the people who aren't regulars prepay for everything (the trade-off for a nice discount).

And if they're not ordering anything from the distributor on a regular basis, well, they're not going to stay in business long

The flaw in that approach is unless one is at a given store on the regular, the cost of special-ordering something through B&M is rather substantial due to having to return to the store. As a consumer, having to drive to a location to acquire an item that could have been sent for a comparable price to a location of one's choosing is usually going to come down in favor of the mail-order. Our hypothetical consumer would also acquire the advantages of stock-in-hand versus the nebulous "from a distributor" as it can happen that there's nothing left in distribution and it's all down to the retail channel for the time being. Not a universal problem, but it does indeed plague some ranges/models. There's also the timing consideration wherein a store cannot acquire from a distributor on-demand and needs to schedule orders. Deciding on Wednesday that you want something could mean a 2 week lag ordering from a store if their order date is Tuesday (i.e. - you have to wait for the following Tuesday for the order and another few days for the actual shipment) while ordering from someone who has it on hand would see it there 3-5 business days sooner.

That's not to say it's impossible to make such a model work, and there are certainly people for whom it's not a big deal to go to their local store because they're there anyway or it's on the way from work, etc. In grand scheme though it's likely that it's more trouble than it is actually worth for many business owners and so they feel their time is better spent not chasing those particular dollars at all. Again, some locales could make it work fine, and their owners would be fools not to; I'm just skeptical that you could generalize that much, if at all, to the whole FLGS marketplace.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
MY problem with KS is the fact that it takes the risk away from companies and puts it on the customer.

That's not entirely true. We've seen any number of companies suffer considerably (and in some cases fold entirely) as a result of unexpected issues once it came time to actually produce the Kickstarter product.

It certainly passes a share of the risk to the 'customer'... but a certain amount of risk is still there for the company. How much depends largely on just how well planned out the Kickstarter was... although a better planned Kickstarter is generally going to result in less risk to the customer as well, so ultimately everyone wins.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talys wrote:
I think you misunderstand -- just don't keep anything on the shelf, and essentially turn the Privateer Press part of the business into a discount mail-order desk, with the exception of stuff like hobby tools and paints, that are supplies which will move. The only items I was suggesting to leave on the shelf was the stuff he already had that didn't survive the fire sale Brick & Mortar stores can undersell online stores (or at least be competitive) because the marginal cost of the special order item is zero -- they're ordering from the distributor for other stuff anyhow. So even if you're only making $2 on a blister, well, it was $2 more than you were going to make. It's literally zero risk, because you make all the people who aren't regulars prepay for everything (the trade-off for a nice discount).

This only works, though, if your customers are actually willing to order what you don't have on the shelf. Many are not.

If I walk into your store and you don't have what I'm looking for, I'm not going to stuff around placing an order for something that I'm going to have to make a separate trip back to collect. I'm just going to get what I want somewhere else that does have it... and then next time I want something, chances are I'm going back to the place that had what I wanted, rather than to your store.