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.

The real problem is that gamers are cheap.

TalonZahn wrote:In the end it doesn't matter because.....

Manufacturer sells product for X to dealer/shop/distributor.

Dealer/Shop/Distributor sells product for X + 5.

If a dealer/shop/distributor decides to sell product for X + 2 instead to sell more items.....

No one should care. Least of all the Manufacturer as they already made what they consider 100% of the money they need.

If you sell at X + 5 and can't compete, then you better sell at X + 2 to compete.

It will all level out sooner or later when everyone agrees that X +2 is the best and most competitive price.

I demand to know where you learned such Wizardry, sir.

pixelpusher wrote:There's quite a big problem for manufacturers if their resellers won't order from them because "Seller X sells your products so much cheaper than we can. We just cannot get the stuff out of the door." It hurts the customers & it hurts the manufacturer. That's why there's a "price control" from the manufacturer / distributor side.

Wal-Mart is a whole different beast than Maelstrom. Now I'm not making a living in the USA, but I'd bet that if there's a huge Wal-Mart-ish chain of stores supporting your products you could most liklely afford having your stuff sold exclusively in that chain and not care about the other smaller retailers since the huge chain can get your stuff out of the door easier than anyone else.

Actually, your examples rather undercut your point. WalMart sells nothing that other people don't sell (other than their own Great Value branded stuff). Listerine, cat litter, Cheerios, everything they sell you can drive down the road to another store and buy for a bit more. The pattern is not "Wal Mart or everyone else" but rather "Wal Mart AND everyone else."

It goes back to my earlier points: everyone wants a different balance of value, between price, service and whatever else. As an example, within about 2-3 miles of where my wife and I used to work (really big company) there is a Giant (food store), a Super Walmart, Wegmans (fancy food store) and Target (fancy Wal Mart). Food wise they sell all the same products, with different bits here and there (Wegmans has really nice produce for instance.) My wife and I generally shop at Wal-Mart and Giant for produce, and almost NEVER see anyone from work. We go to Wegman's to get some steak and can't help but run into 3-4 people we know from work. Wal Mart is cheaper in ALL cases, but Giant has better ham shanks. Wegmans is a bit better in steak and olive bar, but that's just about it. That doesn't keep them from being PACKED every day after work.

Now, one can argue that gaming is a smaller market and so there is less room for varying levels of service, fancy and price, and thus this isn't too relevant. If that's the case, you really can't use Wal Mart as an example either, particularly as they DON'T SELL WARGAMES. (Unless you count Hero Scape or whatever that is...)

And seriously, when did "More people buying and playing the game" become a bad thing? If the Warstore or Maelstrom drop prices 10% and bring in 5% more players, isn't that good for the hobby as a whole? More players means it is easier to find a game, easier to play different armies, and means more people getting their friends into the game, creating a positive feedback loop. Magic:tG isn't exactly a cheap game, but it isn't too expensive to have 3-4 half decent decks (not tourney level mind you), probably achievable for the price of one box of Tac Marines or whatever. I suspect that had a LOT to do with getting new people into the game, when a player could very easily have the resources into introduce someone new to a full game. As it is, if I want to teach my wife WHFB I have to borrow an army.

Wargaming isn't ever going to become "Being part of the Porsche club"; no matter how premium the items, more expensive is going to lessen demand and shrink the player base. Maybe there are enough vet's out there who need every new model, enough so that higher prices will outweigh loss of volume and keep the manufactures and FLGS doing alright. GW and now BF seem to think that. I know a lot more people that are cutting back on hobby spending, and a lot that decided not to get into it because some other hobby is less expensive, that seem to deny that trend.

Punishing your vendors that cut costs on their side in order to provide your ultimate customers with lower prices, whether to support your own online store or prop up independent stores that can't manage to compete, punishes your customers ultimately, and drives them away.

Wehrkind wrote:
So, let me get this straight.

Translation: Let me distort your position

Wehrkind wrote:
1: A lot of Storm Ravens are sold to people who want them for a lower price than they could otherwise get.
2: Therefor there are more space marine players (unstated assumption: lots of people who bought stormravens were not already SM players.) (unstated assumption: the storm raven is somehow cool enough that is prompts people who either do not play or play another army to play space marines.)

The unstated assumptions that you wrote are of your own construction. I made no such assumptions. The first part of my statement was that lots of people bought Storm Ravens because they were discounted. (One reason that retailers discount products is to increase demand in a product. Sure we may want xenos stuff, but if SM stuff is cheap we buy that instead.) I then stated that the shops would be full of Space Marine players with Ravens. This does not mean that lots of people who bought the Ravens were not already Marine players. Many of them may already have some Marines sitting in the closet from when they bought a starter set. Every 40k starter set has Marines in it. It is logical to assume that many of the people who are buying the Ravens will play with them. People with xenos and Marine armies may bring in their Marine army because they got the Raven. Obviously your second unstated assumption does not follow.

Wehrkind wrote:
3: Unstated assumption: There are not just more players, but also a much larger % of SM.

Well I happen to think that there are a larger % of SM players, but that is not an assumption upon which I made by statements.

Wehrkind wrote:
4: GW sees such a spike in SM demand as a result makes more SM (unstated assumption: people don't actually want more SM, despite their buying patterns)

As I stated above, consumer's buying habits are influenced by discounts. So the consumer may want xenos stuff and SM stuff. However, with the discount incentive, and the low cost of building a SM army thanks to the multitude of starter sets and battle forces they buy more marines.

Wehrkind wrote:
Let me restate this:

1:You are worried that people will buy more of what they want and think is cool.
2: Even though this will enlarge the total pool of players, this is bad because they are playing armies that you don't think are cool.

I have no concerns about people buying what they think is cool. I am concerned that by purchasing stuff on discount they hurt FLGS, and decrease the variety of models in the market place. I think that discounters will shrink the pool of total gamers because FLGS are the primary place where people are introduced to the hobby. And for the record I never said that Marines are not cool. However, I think that it is rather dull if everyone plays the same army.

Sheck2 wrote:
Humm...you do realize that discounters have enabled the lower classes to afford better things and dramatically increase their standand of living? Discounters hurt the elite not the populus as they encourage competition and prevent inequatible advantages. You are arguing that the railroad barons and dictators should be kept empowered. Discounting is not dumping.

I do not share your opinion of discounters. They sell cheap products which in the short run appear to increase the standard of living. However, the products are cheap because they are produced overseas with cheap labor. In many cases they are not even comparable to vintage products. I think that if you compared the current price of locally produced products versus what they cost 50 years ago you would find that the new stuff is very expensive. Secondly, by putting so much work overseas there are fewer jobs at home and thus the standard of living falls even further.

The elite make a killing off of discounters, who do you think owns them. If a manufacturer sets the price of a product at retail, it prevents giant retailers from dominating the marketplace. Thus a lowerclass person can open up a hobby shop and compete with a big mail order company.

In closing, and getting back to the discussion of Battlefront vs Maelstrom, it is quite clear from this thread that there is a difference of opinion in the community and that people feel passionate about their position. Thus, I can understand the content of the letter by Battlefront. However, it does not excuse it, and the letter was terribly unprofessional.

Wargaming isn't ever going to become "Being part of the Porsche club"; no matter how premium the items, more expensive is going to lessen demand and shrink the player base. Maybe there are enough vet's out there who need every new model, enough so that higher prices will outweigh loss of volume and keep the manufactures and FLGS doing alright. GW and now BF seem to think that. I know a lot more people that are cutting back on hobby spending, and a lot that decided not to get into it because some other hobby is less expensive, that seem to deny that trend.

God I hope gaming never becomes such a club. A lot of gamers already have elitist attitudes to begin with. Giving them that level of status/prestige would make me commit acts of murder I think...

Wehrkind wrote:

pixelpusher wrote:There's quite a big problem for manufacturers if their resellers won't order from them because "Seller X sells your products so much cheaper than we can. We just cannot get the stuff out of the door." It hurts the customers & it hurts the manufacturer. That's why there's a "price control" from the manufacturer / distributor side.

Wal-Mart is a whole different beast than Maelstrom. Now I'm not making a living in the USA, but I'd bet that if there's a huge Wal-Mart-ish chain of stores supporting your products you could most liklely afford having your stuff sold exclusively in that chain and not care about the other smaller retailers since the huge chain can get your stuff out of the door easier than anyone else.

Actually, your examples rather undercut your point. WalMart sells nothing that other people don't sell (other than their own Great Value branded stuff). Listerine, cat litter, Cheerios, everything they sell you can drive down the road to another store and buy for a bit more. The pattern is not "Wal Mart or everyone else" but rather "Wal Mart AND everyone else."

Wal Mart sells all kinds of stuff that no one else sells. They have exclusives of all kinds including Star Wars toys. I think that they even got a big name blue jean co. to make them cheap jeans.

Wehrkind wrote:
And seriously, when did "More people buying and playing the game" become a bad thing? If the Warstore or Maelstrom drop prices 10% and bring in 5% more players, isn't that good for the hobby as a whole?

Manufacturers seem to think that it is not. They believe that the increase in NEW players based on discounts is lower than the increase in NEW players from FLGS with retail prices. You can start someone in Blood Bowl for $50 retail. You can also start 40k kill teams cheap.

Wehrkind wrote:
Wargaming isn't ever going to become "Being part of the Porsche club"; no matter how premium the items, more expensive is going to lessen demand and shrink the player base. Maybe there are enough vet's out there who need every new model, enough so that higher prices will outweigh loss of volume and keep the manufactures and FLGS doing alright. GW and now BF seem to think that. I know a lot more people that are cutting back on hobby spending, and a lot that decided not to get into it because some other hobby is less expensive, that seem to deny that trend.

I agree with you here. However, I think that the lion's share of the price charged by GW is essentially a premium for their IP. Historicals are much cheaper and have much lower sales volume.

Wehrkind wrote:
Punishing your vendors that cut costs on their side in order to provide your ultimate customers with lower prices, whether to support your own online store or prop up independent stores that can't manage to compete, punishes your customers ultimately, and drives them away.

The problem is that in the USA FLGS are an essential part of the industry. Sadly many gamers will buy stuff online and then play in the stores, only to have the store go out of business. Thus manufacturers prop them up.

spaceelf wrote:
Manufacturers seem to think that it is not. They believe that the increase in NEW players based on discounts is lower than the increase in NEW players from FLGS with retail prices. You can start someone in Blood Bowl for $50 retail. You can also start 40k kill teams cheap.

Sadly GW did away with Kill Teams, and I doubt many introductory players are going to go back and purchase the 4th edition book. As far as I know there is no "legal" online source for kill team rules. Blood Bowl you have a point on, but GW isn't really pouring out support for the system or any of the specialist games anymore.

Putting Walmart into this conversation is like putting a shark in your goldfish bowel.

I didn't read Idaho's information in this matter in that exchange between those two, but from what I can see, there are more then we as outsiders are being privy to.

On the matter of that discount being a bad thing, I think someones getting too far in the reeds to make that sort of an assumption. It wasn't a matter of what you posted, there seems to be more to it then we have information of, and I am seeing the conversation diverging into completely alien topic on this matter.

If it was as clear cut as Duncan would have you it would be a different matter, but from what we see it comes out of left field as "I see your doing something that P123's me off again, even after I told you ...."then we as outsiders are left to think that we are pulling for the little guy and have to take sides in this matter.

I for one see a couple of D bags handling a business matter like they are the only game in town. GW already did this in the middle of the ninties, and it ultimatly cost the whole community from gamers, to FLGS's, to themselves in terms of profits and operating costs, and ultimatly in terms of thier reputation.

Feth them all. If they go out of buisness, someone else wil pick up the pieces and move forward. Especially if this is thier way of doing business.

Ultimatly some of you cats out there seem to think that what they are doing is ok...

Hey, if thats the way you think, keep on keeping on, it doesn't work like that in the real world and players are ultimatly the ones who are going to get the shaft in the end.

derek wrote:

spaceelf wrote:
Manufacturers seem to think that it is not. They believe that the increase in NEW players based on discounts is lower than the increase in NEW players from FLGS with retail prices. You can start someone in Blood Bowl for $50 retail. You can also start 40k kill teams cheap.

Sadly GW did away with Kill Teams, and I doubt many introductory players are going to go back and purchase the 4th edition book. As far as I know there is no "legal" online source for kill team rules. Blood Bowl you have a point on, but GW isn't really pouring out support for the system or any of the specialist games anymore.

There are Kill Team rules in the Battle Missions book.

So Maelstrom are the only retailer with a 40% discount? Maybe BF should think harder about what sort of discounts it hands out before throwing a paddy about how retailers use them.

What about if a store (on-line or otherwise) wants to use BF products as a loss-leader or some similar promotion? BOGOF and the like? Are these also verboten?

Still seems to me that its just GW mentality in a different company, and frankly nothing excuses the sheer rudeness of that email from a supposed proffessional. (sic).

Maybe if BF didn't demand a 10% cutoff for discounts, lots of other stores could compete (perhaps by offering such deals as I mention up there ^.) thus solving any issue with Maelstrom having an unfair price advantage?

Wehrkind wrote:

pixelpusher wrote:There's quite a big problem for manufacturers if their resellers won't order from them because "Seller X sells your products so much cheaper than we can. We just cannot get the stuff out of the door." It hurts the customers & it hurts the manufacturer. That's why there's a "price control" from the manufacturer / distributor side.

Wal-Mart is a whole different beast than Maelstrom. Now I'm not making a living in the USA, but I'd bet that if there's a huge Wal-Mart-ish chain of stores supporting your products you could most liklely afford having your stuff sold exclusively in that chain and not care about the other smaller retailers since the huge chain can get your stuff out of the door easier than anyone else.

Actually, your examples rather undercut your point. WalMart sells nothing that other people don't sell (other than their own Great Value branded stuff). Listerine, cat litter, Cheerios, everything they sell you can drive down the road to another store and buy for a bit more. The pattern is not "Wal Mart or everyone else" but rather "Wal Mart AND everyone else."

It goes back to my earlier points: everyone wants a different balance of value, between price, service and whatever else. As an example, within about 2-3 miles of where my wife and I used to work (really big company) there is a Giant (food store), a Super Walmart, Wegmans (fancy food store) and Target (fancy Wal Mart). Food wise they sell all the same products, with different bits here and there (Wegmans has really nice produce for instance.) My wife and I generally shop at Wal-Mart and Giant for produce, and almost NEVER see anyone from work. We go to Wegman's to get some steak and can't help but run into 3-4 people we know from work. Wal Mart is cheaper in ALL cases, but Giant has better ham shanks. Wegmans is a bit better in steak and olive bar, but that's just about it. That doesn't keep them from being PACKED every day after work.

Now, one can argue that gaming is a smaller market and so there is less room for varying levels of service, fancy and price, and thus this isn't too relevant. If that's the case, you really can't use Wal Mart as an example either, particularly as they DON'T SELL WARGAMES. (Unless you count Hero Scape or whatever that is...)

And seriously, when did "More people buying and playing the game" become a bad thing? If the Warstore or Maelstrom drop prices 10% and bring in 5% more players, isn't that good for the hobby as a whole? More players means it is easier to find a game, easier to play different armies, and means more people getting their friends into the game, creating a positive feedback loop. Magic:tG isn't exactly a cheap game, but it isn't too expensive to have 3-4 half decent decks (not tourney level mind you), probably achievable for the price of one box of Tac Marines or whatever. I suspect that had a LOT to do with getting new people into the game, when a player could very easily have the resources into introduce someone new to a full game. As it is, if I want to teach my wife WHFB I have to borrow an army.

Wargaming isn't ever going to become "Being part of the Porsche club"; no matter how premium the items, more expensive is going to lessen demand and shrink the player base. Maybe there are enough vet's out there who need every new model, enough so that higher prices will outweigh loss of volume and keep the manufactures and FLGS doing alright. GW and now BF seem to think that. I know a lot more people that are cutting back on hobby spending, and a lot that decided not to get into it because some other hobby is less expensive, that seem to deny that trend.

Punishing your vendors that cut costs on their side in order to provide your ultimate customers with lower prices, whether to support your own online store or prop up independent stores that can't manage to compete, punishes your customers ultimately, and drives them away.

Let's see how this goes language barrier and all.

I don't compare this to Walmart, other people did, and I tried to say exactly what you say. Maelstrom isn't Wal-Mart. But there is still that problem with "huge actor selling <brand> cheaper than anyone else can". Which in turn leads to Huge Actor (let's use that as an example instead of WalMart) selling more products and slowly have other retailers selling less and less of the same brand.

Shopping on the internet is also not the same as shopping in person after work. There are tons of other factors in play when you shop online compared to shopping in person. Low prices is one of the key factors and way higher on the list than great service/nicer steaks. That's why price comparison sites are plentiful. As well as the argument "You get it so cheap so why complain about shipping/service/etc?" -.-

Low prices does not lead to more people buying you brand of products though (not comparable to food products, different beast compared to hobby items). Saturation is much more profitable But you cannot get saturation if only one or a few sells your product, even though its super cheap in that store.

In this case I believe that it's much better for the manufacturer if they have a presence in every store (online and retail), with pretty much comparable prices, than just having their products cheap in a few stores. Not everyone in the EU shops at Maelstrom even though they're a big actor here (and in Australia!).

I hope it makes some kind of sense. It always feels awkward trying to make a point in my third language.

Do Maelstrom have a permanent 40% discount?
Because they are using vouchers I assume that it is a one off per season type of deal.

Do B&M stores buy from the manufacturer at a lower cost?
If not then I am not syre what the problem is

Book publishers had to drop the RRP a few years back. Not sure entirely what the difference is here.

Grot 6 wrote:Putting Walmart into this conversation is like putting a shark in your goldfish bowel.

Yeah, I'm guessing that wouldn't end well for the goldfish...

Has anyone else reading through this whole mess had a sudden urge to buy things from Maelstrom?

And no, I'm not referring to the Flames of War items.

Part of me thinks that this whole mess has resulted from someone typoing "Flames of War" with "Seeds of War" one too many times....

Every retailer has a discount when buying from the manufacturer or a distributor. At least if it works the same as it does in the "tactical nylon and personal equipment"-business. Coupled together with some other terms regarding how much discount you can give, where you can sell the products etc.

Alpharius wrote:

Grot 6 wrote:Putting Walmart into this conversation is like putting a shark in your goldfish bowel.

Yeah, I'm guessing that wouldn't end well for the goldfish...

Unless its a big fething gold fish. We might need an even bigger boat for this one.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Do Maelstrom have a permanent 40% discount?

When buying from a distibutor (sometimes it's the actual manufacturer) all retailers receive a discount. A retailer will enter a contract with a distributor/manufacturer that sets this discount for a period of time.

As I stated earlier, when I was looking into setting up my own store, the average discount was 43% to 47%. That only changes by manufacturer. So all product from a manufacturer would be say 47% off.
So that means for example:

Suggested Retail on a Product is $10.00 on the retailers shelf. 47% off of $10.00 is $4.70 making the retailers cost $5.30 from the distributor/manufacturer. Which means any amount I sell that item for above the $5.30 is profit to me. If I want to sell 1 item at 10% off (to make $3.70 profit off that one item) or 1 item at 25% off (to make $2.20 profit off that one item) and then hope people buy twice as much, that's my business. It just means I need to sell more. Are you more likely to buy 1 tank at 10% off or 2 tanks at 25% off? Retailers are banking that you buy 2 beacuse they will make more money selling 2 at 25% off than 1 at 10% off.

Which is why I don't understand how BF can pitch a fit with any discount MG wants to give. If they rely on volumn sales to cover their deep discounts, that's on them, not BF. BF already got their money as they decided that they got what they needed to get when they sold their items to MG at their price.

spaceelf wrote:

derek wrote:

spaceelf wrote:
Manufacturers seem to think that it is not. They believe that the increase in NEW players based on discounts is lower than the increase in NEW players from FLGS with retail prices. You can start someone in Blood Bowl for $50 retail. You can also start 40k kill teams cheap.

Sadly GW did away with Kill Teams, and I doubt many introductory players are going to go back and purchase the 4th edition book. As far as I know there is no "legal" online source for kill team rules. Blood Bowl you have a point on, but GW isn't really pouring out support for the system or any of the specialist games anymore.

There are Kill Team rules in the Battle Missions book.

Huh. Did not know that, good to know then.

That seems to suggest the equivelent cost price of goods for the retailer whereas I was thinking about retail discounts.

Obviously a retailer is not going to buy Space Knights from Delicat Inc at full Gnomes Workhouse retail value. Else the business will be over very shortly.
But I think we are on the same wavelength regarding the outcome.

I am not eally grasping what has supposed to have been done wrong, since I assume that a B&M store will be buying at for example 45% of the retali value just the same as an online store.

I appreciate the argument about stock capacity and overheads. But since I can walk into a FLGS and order stuff they don't have in stock or phone them and order to pick up, it surely doesn't make a lot of difference?

Most stock is held at distributors. Don't forget, they tack on their profit too. They aren't going to store and ship it for free to the retailer.

So the actual wholesale cost from a place like GW, is even less than 43%-47% off of retail in most cases. That could mean something like a $50 tank is $50 on the shelf to you, $26.50 to the store selling it, and $15.00 to the distributor from the manufacturer. So, as long the manufacturer gets his $15.00 from the distributor, why does he care if the store sells it for $50 or $30?

The reason Manufacturers get pissed off at Online Only retailers is, they have no overhead compared to a B&M store. Can offer big discounts and operate a thinner margin.

B&M has rent, more employees (wages/insurance), more utilities, pays more taxes (state/local/fed), etc... Online Stores could be some dude at home with a garage and a computer.

Battlefront, last I checked, requires you to have a B&M store in order to obtain their product.

Just look at our new friend Galaxy Gobbo, or the other popular place Groupon. They advertise a great discount if a certain amount of people buy an item. Say, 35% off Baneblades, if 100 are bought. Why 100? That's what the retailer determined would generate him enough profit to allow that deep of a discount. How many Storm Ravens would you buy if the discount was 20%? What if it was 30%? Did your purchase number go up? Mine would.

Have some business studies qualifications, albeit a long while ago now, and some experience in retail. ie I get the basics, just a bit puzzled by some of the specifics of this case.

That's my confusion.

BF got what they wanted from MG when that transaction occured.

Why do they care what MG does with their prices?

spaceelf wrote:The problem is that in the USA FLGS are an essential part of the industry. Sadly many gamers will buy stuff online and then play in the stores, only to have the store go out of business. Thus manufacturers prop them up.

No they're not. Not even close. For many of us FLGS never have, nor never will be an essential part of the industry.

If you need to prop something up, obviously they arent essential.

TalonZahn wrote:That's my confusion.

BF got what they wanted from MG when that transaction occured.

Why do they care what MG does with their prices?

Because MG discounts are probably hurting other retailers. For example, it's great if MG buys 10k a month worth of product, but if their prices are preventing ten other retailers from moving their usual 2k a month purchases, it's actually hurting Battlefront.

WUWU wrote:

TalonZahn wrote:That's my confusion.

BF got what they wanted from MG when that transaction occured.

Why do they care what MG does with their prices?

Because MG discounts are probably hurting other retailers. For example, it's great if MG buys 10k a month worth of product, but if their prices are preventing ten other retailers from moving their usual 2k a month purchases, it's actually hurting Battlefront.

And if BF let other retailers use various "discount" modes available to the rest of the commercial world, then it would still be a level playing field.

WUWU wrote:
Because MG discounts are probably hurting other retailers. For example, it's great if MG buys 10k a month worth of product, but if their prices are preventing ten other retailers from moving their usual 2k a month purchases, it's actually hurting Battlefront.

That's a Strawman at best. ArbeitsSchu is correct.

The market will settle itself to an acceptable resale value over time. Once everyone realizes that a certain percent off of retail is the limit, they will all settle on that limit.

Go to EBay for examples of this. The EBay stores are all heavily discounted, yet magically all around the same price.

I wonder how that happens?

pixelpusher wrote:Let's see how this goes language barrier and all.

I don't compare this to Walmart, other people did, and I tried to say exactly what you say. Maelstrom isn't Wal-Mart. But there is still that problem with "huge actor selling <brand> cheaper than anyone else can". Which in turn leads to Huge Actor (let's use that as an example instead of WalMart) selling more products and slowly have other retailers selling less and less of the same brand.

Shopping on the internet is also not the same as shopping in person after work. There are tons of other factors in play when you shop online compared to shopping in person. Low prices is one of the key factors and way higher on the list than great service/nicer steaks. That's why price comparison sites are plentiful. As well as the argument "You get it so cheap so why complain about shipping/service/etc?" -.-

Low prices does not lead to more people buying you brand of products though (not comparable to food products, different beast compared to hobby items). Saturation is much more profitable But you cannot get saturation if only one or a few sells your product, even though its super cheap in that store.

In this case I believe that it's much better for the manufacturer if they have a presence in every store (online and retail), with pretty much comparable prices, than just having their products cheap in a few stores. Not everyone in the EU shops at Maelstrom even though they're a big actor here (and in Australia!).

I hope it makes some kind of sense. It always feels awkward trying to make a point in my third language.

Don't worry, you are making your point very well! Much better than many native speakers manage too, though I suspect that when the logic is sound the rest comes along a bit easier

I think though that your scenario would benefit from considering "Ok, then what?" So say Huge Actor Store (HAS) has an internet site and a B&M store. Maelstrom has both, and the Warstore has both, and so far as I know those are the big HAS types in the market. They probably move more product than most brick and mortar stores, almost certainly. In your scenario that results in fewer FLGS type stores and such, though with more or less the same amount of product being sold, correct?

Ok, then what? Who fills the niche left by the now lacking FLGS? Clubs or internet sites for finding games? HMGS type organizations? Those all exist currently. What about the HAS opening up additional locations? Perhaps after some of the more marginal FLGS stores fold, there will be space for a new store that can be more profitable and offer better services. Mike's store seemed to do this, with two Showcase locations. You still get saturation, both of game play and product sales, just different sources. After all, LOTS of people play Catan, Magic or whatever and there are no stores specifically for that.

Also, I don't know that I would agree that there are many differences between shopping online vs in a store. Just in my personal experience I know that I don't do business with stores that have poor service, particularly if they are online (harder to show up and press point after all). Likewise a store that has good selection and is easy to shop at is important in both cases. I know I got trained pretty well to not bother with some of the local stores up this way for any sort of large army purchase since their inventory is often anemic. Still, for spot purchases or periodic lust buys of stuff in stock (very rare since they don't stock more exotic manufacturers :( )
And I don't know too many people who don't jump on bad service when it occurs

I also don't know that low prices don't lead to people buying more of your product. I can see that the commodity model doesn't really apply, but more disposable income generally means more spending on such categories of stuff. If I am planning out some hobby spending, and have 120$ to blow, it is getting spent, whether on 4 boxes of IG or 5 (or a tank, or some lust model etc.) True I might buy a book or a movie instead, but if I have more play money I am going to spend more money on playing. Whether it is a second army, or some cool toys that I might experiment with in the list, if I have some extra cash I can spend more.
More importantly, it makes it easier for new people to get into the hobby. Wargaming is expensive, with 40k having what, a 200$ jump in fee if you don't play SM or Orks and need a rule book, codex and 4 squads retail? Emperor save you if you play Sisters or IG. Importantly though, GW makes EXACTLY the same money if I buy from the FLGS at full retail or the Warstore at 20% off.

Which leads me to my last point: GW and probably BF don't set retail prices to help the FLGS. From most of the owners I have spoken with, they couldn't care less. GW sets their prices to protect they profit margins of the GW stores and website. Consider why it must be that GW stores charge the same for their product as a FLGS that gets it from a distributor who gets it from GW. GW makes an extremely large profit off products bought directly from them, which is why they don't want you purchasing online, and make the FLGS jump through hoops for various price rates etc. I can't blame them; before the internet having your own stores made a lot of sense, and changing the business model can be rough.

Now, I don't know if BF has their own stores or whatever, so I might not be speaking to them. And if they want to put down rules about what their customers (stores) can charge, that is their business. I just think it is foolish, and does very little good for their bottom line. What REALLY gets me though is when they try to claim that making me pay more for their product than someone wants to sell it to me for is somehow GOOD for me, well that makes me kind of angry. It is crap like that what makes me think I should really polish my armor and start going to SCA practice on a regular basis again. :(


Automatically Appended Next Post:

TalonZahn wrote:

WUWU wrote:
Because MG discounts are probably hurting other retailers. For example, it's great if MG buys 10k a month worth of product, but if their prices are preventing ten other retailers from moving their usual 2k a month purchases, it's actually hurting Battlefront.

That's a Strawman at best. ArbeitsSchu is correct.

The market will settle itself to an acceptable resale value over time. Once everyone realizes that a certain percent off of retail is the limit, they will all settle on that limit.

Go to EBay for examples of this. The EBay stores are all heavily discounted, yet magically all around the same price.

I wonder how that happens?

Well put.

Duncan_Idaho wrote:It is about the discounts MG got as a shop. They were using a discount intended for B&M for online trading. In the end this allows them to grow faster than every other online retailer that follows the contract. Competition between shops is good, but this got beyond a point where all have equal chances to compete.

Ah, thanks Duncan. That explains it.

TalonZahn wrote:

WUWU wrote:
Because MG discounts are probably hurting other retailers. For example, it's great if MG buys 10k a month worth of product, but if their prices are preventing ten other retailers from moving their usual 2k a month purchases, it's actually hurting Battlefront.

That's a Strawman at best. ArbeitsSchu is correct.

The market will settle itself to an acceptable resale value over time. Once everyone realizes that a certain percent off of retail is the limit, they will all settle on that limit.

Go to EBay for examples of this. The EBay stores are all heavily discounted, yet magically all around the same price.

I wonder how that happens?

No, it isn't a straw man at all, because I was directly answering the question I quoted. It was not a critique on either company or their policies.. The internet sure loves throwing around the ol' "logical fallacy" left and right nowadays, whether they know what they are talking about or not.

Frankly, I think both companies are in the wrong here, and I wont be patronizing either in the future.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:

WUWU wrote:

TalonZahn wrote:That's my confusion.

BF got what they wanted from MG when that transaction occured.

Why do they care what MG does with their prices?

Because MG discounts are probably hurting other retailers. For example, it's great if MG buys 10k a month worth of product, but if their prices are preventing ten other retailers from moving their usual 2k a month purchases, it's actually hurting Battlefront.

And if BF let other retailers use various "discount" modes available to the rest of the commercial world, then it would still be a level playing field.

TalonZahn wrote:

WUWU wrote:
Because MG discounts are probably hurting other retailers. For example, it's great if MG buys 10k a month worth of product, but if their prices are preventing ten other retailers from moving their usual 2k a month purchases, it's actually hurting Battlefront.

That's a Strawman at best. ArbeitsSchu is correct.

The market will settle itself to an acceptable resale value over time. Once everyone realizes that a certain percent off of retail is the limit, they will all settle on that limit.

Go to EBay for examples of this. The EBay stores are all heavily discounted, yet magically all around the same price.

I wonder how that happens?

If only things were as black and white as that. You're making a massive assumption that every retailer has exactly the same business model and associated costs which is quite simply not true. It's already been asserted that Maelstrom are a large operation which for a start is going to give them economy of scale. A small independent LGS is going to have higher per unit costs on pretty much everything, from rent to heating to staff wages. Factor in that BF are selling their product to MG for less than what they're selling to smaller stores and you come up with a big difference in what is a profitable mark up for MG and for smaller LGSs (e.g. MG can turn a profit with a £2 markup on a £6 product, whereas a smaller store has to put on a £2.75 markup on the same product that costs them £6.30).

To piggyback on the Wal Mart metaphor, why can Asda/Wal Mart sell a can of Heinz beans for 40p when my local cornershop sells it for 65p and still make less money than Asda/Wal Mart?