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.

 DrNo172000 wrote:
A note on your role play, try to write it in a first person from the customers perspective, and if possible try to avoid attacking the company. Here's another one
As a consumer price increases represent a loss to me because now the items I enjoy cost more than they use to. Since I am loss averse I will buy items that have increased prices less, especially if they don't represent a necessity.

I don't even need to roleplay to know that my own personal interest in the ASOIAF/Game of Thrones KS interest went from "high" to "nearly none due to this policy change".

Even without knowing what the "MAPP" is here?

What if it allows for up to a 15% or 20% discount from the 'retail' price?

I mean, we don't know what the "MAPP" is yet, do we?

 Alpharius wrote:
Even without knowing what the "MAPP" is here?

What if it allows for up to a 15% or 20% discount from the 'retail' price?

I mean, we don't know what the "MAPP" is yet, do we?

Who cares what the number is? A company is attempting to dictate the value of it's products instead of the market asserting the value of it's products.

 judgedoug wrote:

 DrNo172000 wrote:
A note on your role play, try to write it in a first person from the customers perspective, and if possible try to avoid attacking the company. Here's another one
As a consumer price increases represent a loss to me because now the items I enjoy cost more than they use to. Since I am loss averse I will buy items that have increased prices less, especially if they don't represent a necessity.

I don't even need to roleplay to know that my own personal interest in the ASOIAF/Game of Thrones KS interest went from "high" to "nearly none due to this policy change".

So your personal ethos on this matter is that, because CMON wants to create/enforce a means for their products to be sold closer to the listed retail value (they are not actually raising prices, just saying they want them to actually be sold for less of a discount), you're not interested in spending *any* money on their products?

 judgedoug wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
Even without knowing what the "MAPP" is here?

What if it allows for up to a 15% or 20% discount from the 'retail' price?

I mean, we don't know what the "MAPP" is yet, do we?

Who cares what the number is? A company is attempting to dictate the value of it's products instead of the market asserting the value of it's products.

Do you no longer buy PP or GW products too?

Just curious.

Anyway, I'm not going to get upset until we find out what the MAPP is here - and maybe not even then.

 John Prins wrote:
This isn't exactly price fixing. Price fixing is when several players in the industry collude to ensure they all sell the same thing at a certain price. Like the gasoline companies do,

Correct RPM (retail price maintenance) is technically a vertical strategy to protect incremental sales, and has been allowed by the Colgate Doctrine so long as the minimum price is unilateral and not set by an agreement between manufacturer and re-sellers (the manufacture can never set a price with the re-seller, they have to set the price and tell the re-seller this is what it's gonna be). Price-fixing by contrast is a horizontal strategy in which prices are fixed by groups with shared interest to cut out competition. Price-fixing violates anti-trust laws obviously. I'm surprised no one has brought up the electronic market as a counter to why MAP and MRP are good. I'll do it just to play both sides. Note this is based on how it works in the U.S and with U.S. laws.

Imagine that you are a brick and mortar retailer who sales cameras, you have floor models, retail space, and sales personnel. This is all very expensive, online stores often have none of these cost (if they don't have a B&M). So what happens is customers go to physical store get hands on with the cameras and don't buy (called freeriding in economics). They have benefited form a service without paying for it. They then go and buy the camera they liked online for much cheaper. So in order to protect the incremental sales from the physical channel (note it has nothing to do with protecting those stores, but rather keeping a source of revenue open, the protection of the stores is a bonus for those stores) the manufacturer sets a MRP or minimum resale price. That is the argument for that the electronic industry has stood on for a long time.

 judgedoug wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
Even without knowing what the "MAPP" is here?

What if it allows for up to a 15% or 20% discount from the 'retail' price?

I mean, we don't know what the "MAPP" is yet, do we?

Who cares what the number is? A company is attempting to dictate the value of it's products instead of the market asserting the value of it's products.

So... like Apple?

 Pugnacious_Cee wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:

 DrNo172000 wrote:
A note on your role play, try to write it in a first person from the customers perspective, and if possible try to avoid attacking the company. Here's another one
As a consumer price increases represent a loss to me because now the items I enjoy cost more than they use to. Since I am loss averse I will buy items that have increased prices less, especially if they don't represent a necessity.

I don't even need to roleplay to know that my own personal interest in the ASOIAF/Game of Thrones KS interest went from "high" to "nearly none due to this policy change".

So your personal ethos on this matter is that, because CMON wants to create/enforce a means for their products to be sold closer to the listed retail value (they are not actually raising prices, just saying they want them to actually be sold for less of a discount), you're not interested in spending *any* money on their products?

This is false, it does indeed represent an increase in price. This is because price is from the consumer perspective not the manufacturer perspective. Therefore MSRP is not the actual price, the actual price is what the consumer is comfortable paying on a regular basis. Therefore if a consumer is use to paying X and price increases to Y it will represent a loss to the customer which will cause a negative reaction. I suggest reading Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman to have a better understanding of why this is bad. It's one of the foundations of behavioral economics tbh.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
Even without knowing what the "MAPP" is here?

What if it allows for up to a 15% or 20% discount from the 'retail' price?

I mean, we don't know what the "MAPP" is yet, do we?

Who cares what the number is? A company is attempting to dictate the value of it's products instead of the market asserting the value of it's products.

So... like Apple?

Apple is able to command a larger price because they have an extremely high perceived value amongst their target audience. Which of course their target audience cares nothing about the tech spec rather they care about Apple's why and buy that why, the center of the golden circle as Sinek calls it. I don't think anyone here is gonna argue that CMON has even close to the perceived value or brand strength in it's market that Apple does.

 Alpharius wrote:
Do you no longer buy PP or GW products too? Just curious.Anyway, I'm not going to get upset until we find out what the MAPP is here - and maybe not even then.

Pretty much. The only purchases from PP I've made since they started their garbage policy have been from clearance sales (Mini Market mainly - and this past one they've run, I didn't buy anything). I think the only purchase in the past year was the Menoth Mk III starter from the FLGS during the preorder/prerelease (and got all the fun freebies).

As for GW, I was buying thru Doc's until recently (since Doc's hit the 15% limit now). I buy from ebay stores that sell at 20%+ off, and there's Amazon sellers that don't give a feth about GW's policy either. I've used store credit I've accrued at a FLGS to "buy" stuff at retail price, but the store credit was for trades of stuff I didn't want anymore (or got for pennies at other flea markets, etc).

And the same applies to Battlefront and Hawk. I have a ton of Team Yankee stuff that i've gotten from "under the table" resellers that just ignore Battlefront's minimum price garbage.

Unless the MAPP is 100%, any number is medged.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pugnacious_Cee wrote:
So your personal ethos on this matter is that, because CMON wants to create/enforce a means for their products to be sold closer to the listed retail value (they are not actually raising prices, just saying they want them to actually be sold for less of a discount), you're not interested in spending *any* money on their products?

They are increasing prices. I could buy a $100 CMON game for $60. Therefore, it is $60. Assuming their MAPP is less than 40% off, it is a price increase.

 DrNo172000 wrote:


Apple is able to command a larger price because they have an extremely high perceived value amongst their target audience. Which of course their target audience cares nothing about the tech spec rather they care about Apple's why and buy that why, the center of the golden circle as Sinek calls it. I don't think anyone here is gonna argue that CMON has even close to the perceived value or brand strength in it's market that Apple does.

This seems to be *exactly* what CMON is trying to do. How many big name brands in board games, at least that are widely recognizable, are there?

 judgedoug wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
Do you no longer buy PP or GW products too? Just curious.Anyway, I'm not going to get upset until we find out what the MAPP is here - and maybe not even then.

Pretty much. The only purchases from PP I've made since they started their garbage policy have been from clearance sales (Mini Market mainly - and this past one they've run, I didn't buy anything). I think the only purchase in the past year was the Menoth Mk III starter from the FLGS during the preorder/prerelease (and got all the fun freebies).

As for GW, I was buying thru Doc's until recently (since Doc's hit the 15% limit now). I buy from ebay stores that sell at 20%+ off, and there's Amazon sellers that don't give a feth about GW's policy either. I've used store credit I've accrued at a FLGS to "buy" stuff at retail price, but the store credit was for trades of stuff I didn't want anymore (or got for pennies at other flea markets, etc).

And the same applies to Battlefront and Hawk. I have a ton of Team Yankee stuff that i've gotten from "under the table" resellers that just ignore Battlefront's minimum price garbage.

Unless the MAPP is 100%, any number is medged.

Anecdotal as it may be I also ceased all purchasing of Privateer Press products due in large part because of the MAP and it was easily one of my top 3 miniature games. Then after awhile I slowly stopped playing. I still lament it at times but ultimately they priced me out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pugnacious_Cee wrote:

 DrNo172000 wrote:


Apple is able to command a larger price because they have an extremely high perceived value amongst their target audience. Which of course their target audience cares nothing about the tech spec rather they care about Apple's why and buy that why, the center of the golden circle as Sinek calls it. I don't think anyone here is gonna argue that CMON has even close to the perceived value or brand strength in it's market that Apple does.

This seems to be *exactly* what CMON is trying to do. How many big name brands in board games, at least that are widely recognizable, are there?

You can't do it by setting a MAP though. That's a gross misunderstanding of perceived value. Perceived value raises prices, prices don't raise perceived value (there are exceptions, but these exceptions generally start with a high price). There is a reason why you can get the same diamond ring at 399 from at Costco but 1999.99 from Tiffany&Co. It doesn't matter they are the exact same ring Tiffany still sales more of them because of the perceived value it's brand carries.

 DrNo172000 wrote:
Anecdotal as it may be I also ceased all purchasing of Privateer Press products due in large part because of the MAP and it was easily one of my top 3 miniature games. Then after awhile I slowly stopped playing. I still lament it at times but ultimately they priced me out.

And you were a Press Ganger when you were a game store manager, right?

Then what, do you gentlemen propose, is the purpose of this MAPP, then?

 Pugnacious_Cee wrote:
Then what, do you gentlemen propose, is the purpose of this MAPP, then?

Most likely as a strategy to protect incremental sales from both Kickstarter and Physical stores. More sources of sales is good for a manufacturer. See my electronics example above, of course whether that strategy works is a completely different can of worms.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 judgedoug wrote:

 DrNo172000 wrote:
Anecdotal as it may be I also ceased all purchasing of Privateer Press products due in large part because of the MAP and it was easily one of my top 3 miniature games. Then after awhile I slowly stopped playing. I still lament it at times but ultimately they priced me out.

And you were a Press Ganger when you were a game store manager, right?

Never a Press Ganger as I was in the process for about a year and then they announced they where killing it. Note I also applied after I left that sales manager position to avoid conflict of interest.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Check out the infograph in this article (you can ignore the lobster bit unless you are fascinated by it like me). Scroll down to how price effects perceived value. Bullet point 3 is the one that concerns what CMON or not is doing. Now I'm arguing that an expectation has already been set, that expectation is that I can get the product at a certain price below MSRP. So if that price goes up it'll feel like a rip off to the average consumer because it represents less money in the consumers wallet if they choose to still buy.


https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/243716

 DrNo172000 wrote:

 John Prins wrote:
This isn't exactly price fixing. Price fixing is when several players in the industry collude to ensure they all sell the same thing at a certain price. Like the gasoline companies do,

Imagine that you are a brick and mortar retailer who sales cameras, you have floor models, retail space, and sales personnel. This is all very expensive, online stores often have none of these cost (if they don't have a B&M). So what happens is customers go to physical store get hands on with the cameras and don't buy (called freeriding in economics). They have benefited form a service without paying for it. They then go and buy the camera they liked online for much cheaper. So in order to protect the incremental sales from the physical channel (note it has nothing to do with protecting those stores, but rather keeping a source of revenue open, the protection of the stores is a bonus for those stores) the manufacturer sets a MRP or minimum resale price. That is the argument for that the electronic industry has stood on for a long time.

Exactly. Online retailers killing off brick and mortar stores is NOT a win for the consumer in the long run. Online retailers are great for things you can't get reasonably close to where you live, but they actually offer less value to the customer despite having the 'lowest' price.

 John Prins wrote:

 DrNo172000 wrote:

 John Prins wrote:
This isn't exactly price fixing. Price fixing is when several players in the industry collude to ensure they all sell the same thing at a certain price. Like the gasoline companies do,

Imagine that you are a brick and mortar retailer who sales cameras, you have floor models, retail space, and sales personnel. This is all very expensive, online stores often have none of these cost (if they don't have a B&M). So what happens is customers go to physical store get hands on with the cameras and don't buy (called freeriding in economics). They have benefited form a service without paying for it. They then go and buy the camera they liked online for much cheaper. So in order to protect the incremental sales from the physical channel (note it has nothing to do with protecting those stores, but rather keeping a source of revenue open, the protection of the stores is a bonus for those stores) the manufacturer sets a MRP or minimum resale price. That is the argument for that the electronic industry has stood on for a long time.

Exactly. Online retailers killing off brick and mortar stores is NOT a win for the consumer in the long run. Online retailers are great for things you can't get reasonably close to where you live, but they actually offer less value to the customer despite having the 'lowest' price.

Eh value is highly relative. Amazon actually offers tons and tons of value to their customers, actual value, it's why their customers will actually pay more for items from Amazon, their customers will often not even price compare due to so much trust in Amazon. I would disagree that RPM has helped protect brick and mortars. The electronic industry is in fact a prime example, it is getting harder and harder to find electronics outside of big box stores in a physical location (at least in the US). So you have Walmart, Target, maybe Bestbuy, and online stores which all those psychical stores have. Rather in my opinion it is not online retailers killing off brick and mortars but a lack of elasticity on the part of brick and mortar retailers in a ever evolving market. Omnichannel is the way to go!

 John Prins wrote:
Exactly. Online retailers killing off brick and mortar stores is NOT a win for the consumer in the long run. Online retailers are great for things you can't get reasonably close to where you live, but they actually offer less value to the customer despite having the 'lowest' price.

I would disagree. Online retailers killing off poorly-run brick and mortar stores is a GREAT win for the consumer in the long run. Those terrible FLGS should die while the good ones thrive. If a bad FLGS dies, then the vacuum left by it's passing will encourage an entrepreneur to open a better-run FLGS that will have value-added services.

Also I think it's important to understand the difference between what a company says legally and why they actually do things. I doubt any manufacturer says to them selves I want brick and mortars to survive. Rather I think they say to themselves I want to maintain this sales channel. If they viewed brick and mortars as a completely non-viable sales channel they'd leave them to rot. Make no mistake, a companies altruism only goes so far.

 judgedoug wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
Even without knowing what the "MAPP" is here?

What if it allows for up to a 15% or 20% discount from the 'retail' price?

I mean, we don't know what the "MAPP" is yet, do we?

Who cares what the number is? A company is attempting to dictate the value of it's products instead of the market asserting the value of it's products.

You must not buy any products from any retailer I assume? Every single company dictates the price of their products, this isn't a stock price. They sell to a wholesale vendor at a set price that then marks it up and sells it to a retailer who then sells it to us. Sure, sometimes you have a small amount of price wiggle room but there is ALWAYS a base price dictated by the company. After all, it's their product.

 Kirasu wrote:
You must not buy any products from any retailer I assume? Every single company dictates the price of their products,

I'm guessing you didn't mean to use the word 'dictate' and instead meant to use the word 'suggests'?
Even if the case of a manufacturer selling to a distributor, the prices are set entirely based on quantities, previous relationships, etc. Or, you can buy factory-direct and skip the middle-man!

And, yes, as a consumer, I buy products at the value I perceive them to be. This is often much less than the Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price, and far below some aforementioned companies set with their "Minimum" price schemes. This applies across all avenues of life. I am a sucker for seeing the "percentage savings" at the bottom of my Kroger grocery store receipt after combining their sales and manufacturer coupons into a delightful combination of paying far under retail. There's pleeeeennntttyyy of products where the price will never be low enough to get me to purchase them. Their perceived value, to me, is nil. Canned olives, or Infinity, for example.

In this specific case, CMON has enacted a price increase. I was comfortable buying a few of their products at 35-40% off - I even bought Zombicide at 50% off, which was about what I thought it was worth. If their MAP sets no discounts greater, than, for example, 20%, then it is a huge price increase and now I will have to reevaluate if they still hold value to me (probably not)

 Kirasu wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
Even without knowing what the "MAPP" is here?

What if it allows for up to a 15% or 20% discount from the 'retail' price?

I mean, we don't know what the "MAPP" is yet, do we?

Who cares what the number is? A company is attempting to dictate the value of it's products instead of the market asserting the value of it's products.

You must not buy any products from any retailer I assume? Every single company dictates the price of their products, this isn't a stock price. They sell to a wholesale vendor at a set price that then marks it up and sells it to a retailer who then sells it to us. Sure, sometimes you have a small amount of price wiggle room but there is ALWAYS a base price dictated by the company. After all, it's their product.

There is a difference between dictating wholesale price (and they don't dictate that even, they negotiate it) and dictating resell price, that you are equating the two seems disingenuous. Also note the consumer sets price no matter what, it doesn't matter that it's YOUR product. Because if no one will buy it then who cares whose product it is. Rather if you want to get a certain price you better back it up with a strong brand and reason for the customer to perceive the value at that price. MSRP is not the actual price of something, again the actual price is the price the consumer is willing to pay on a regular basis.

I personally do not think CMON brand is worth close to their MSRP, I can't speak for others though as most of their games aren't to my taste. So that's purely anecdotal. Though I think objectively they don't have nearly as strong of a brand as FFG or GW when it comes to hobby companies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So essentially no one outside of mega brands like Apple get to dictate prices. They negotiate them.

I will stop purchasing Cmon products as well. I stopped when GW and PP did it so Cmon will receive the same. Dust Tactics increased their prices greatly and have suffered based on the KS and a price increase.

Cmon doing this with the upcoming GoT KS is disappointing based on the fact that the later armies will be released at retail. The KS providing only two armies with the rest at a SUGGESTED price stinks.

Cmon released its financial info this year with record revenue levels of 28 million. This company has grown a lot and are certainly not hurting for cash.

I just wish they'd tell us what the MAPP is going to be already!!!

 DrNo172000 wrote:

Eh value is highly relative. Amazon actually offers tons and tons of value to their customers, actual value, it's why their customers will actually pay more for items from Amazon, their customers will often not even price compare due to so much trust in Amazon. I would disagree that RPM has helped protect brick and mortars. The electronic industry is in fact a prime example, it is getting harder and harder to find electronics outside of big box stores in a physical location (at least in the US). So you have Walmart, Target, maybe Bestbuy, and online stores which all those psychical stores have. Rather in my opinion it is not online retailers killing off brick and mortars but a lack of elasticity on the part of brick and mortar retailers in a ever evolving market. Omnichannel is the way to go!

I agree that brick and mortar stores should use online sales, but they still won't be able to compete with stores lacking that brick and mortar presence. The overhead is killer. And physical locations to play are pretty essential in the wargaming hobby. The real choices are:

1.) Support your FLGS with higher prices and a place to play,
2.) Support your gaming club (dues to pay for play space),
3.) Host games at your own home with people you trust enough to not steal your stuff (cost of table and terrain).




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 judgedoug wrote:

 John Prins wrote:
Exactly. Online retailers killing off brick and mortar stores is NOT a win for the consumer in the long run. Online retailers are great for things you can't get reasonably close to where you live, but they actually offer less value to the customer despite having the 'lowest' price.

I would disagree. Online retailers killing off poorly-run brick and mortar stores is a GREAT win for the consumer in the long run. Those terrible FLGS should die while the good ones thrive. If a bad FLGS dies, then the vacuum left by it's passing will encourage an entrepreneur to open a better-run FLGS that will have value-added services.

This assumes that online sales can't kill off even well run FLGS. That remains to be seen. It's possible that the FLGS just isn't a viable business model, but I think the wargame community needs those physical play locations to grow/survive and allow the market to create more/new products for us to consume. There's a relationship between games stores and games getting made/created. Local gaming clubs CAN replace that, but they won't necessarily do so. I think we're better off with FLGS friendly policies by games manufacturers, that's enlightened self-interest.

It bothers me to say the least, as a consumer.

Honestly though, I haven't bought any CMON products at retail. I doubt I would have prior to this as well. Any kind of pricing shenanigans are certainly going to keep me from making any purchases in the future under those kinds of conditions as well.

I stopped buying Privateer's stuff when they started messing with discounts, and prior to GW's discount bundling, I hadn't touched anything of theirs in years.

Will this move stop me from backing a Kickstarter though? Probably not, if the pot is sweet enough.

@John Prins

There is definitely no question that a space to play is necessary for these games, with miniature games, and hex and counters being the two that require the most (though Hex and Counters are a niche within a niche within a niche, so unlikely a store would even carry or you'd see people playing in a store). The question then is the LGS necessary to provide that, I think the answer of "yes" is just something we all assume. You can't possibly open a store without a place to play, is the conventional wisdom. There is unfortunately no statistic that I'm aware of (outside of a single survey) to say whether this is true or not.

However, let's consider it is. Does that mean the LGS can still survive with a MAP. I'm not so certain, gaming, especially board games and RPGs is growing rapidly. The large chains have begun to notice, Barnes & Nobles host a yearly play day across most of it's stores and many stores have implemented regular board game nights. Board games cafe's are picking up in popularity in the west coast. Hobby Town has started looking into hosting 40k and games like X-Wing and dedicating space too it at some of it's stores. There's a shift in the market, and I argue that even with all the RPM strategies manufacturers can muster the mom & pop style LGS is doomed in the long run because it's a model that simply no longer works in a ever evolving market. Even having an online component is not enough (note ANA made this really hard for the small business anyway), retailers need to get savvy and have multiple channels from which they can interact with customers and those channels need to be seamlessly integrated. Barnes & Noble who I mentioned earlier is a prime example, when digital book sales exploded many book stores even the big chains complained it would ruin the industry it would be terrible for the consumer. All the same arguments we are seeing now. Those that clung to the old way, like borders when out of business. Barnes & Noble though shifted their entire business model, they got digital, and one of the other things they did was increase their game section by a substantial amount. At the end of the day if your plan is for the long term you can not expect to have the same business model throughout your entire existence.

 Alpharius wrote:
I just wish they'd tell us what the MAPP is going to be already!!!

MAPP means Minimum *Advertised* Pricing Policy. Retailers can still sell the product at whatever discount, they just can't "advertise" it.

This isn't any different than when you see something on Amazon where you have to put the item in your cart to see the price. Or agree to buy an Apple product, which is also under MAP.

This SBA article says MAP is not as straightforward as you may think, because the seller can charge MSRP, but still add value, such as free shipping -- or KS exclusives.

The Nuvonium article argues that it *protects* retailers because they know *other* retailers won't be able to as easily undercut them.

SBA article: https://www.sba.gov/blogs/how-minimum-advertised-pricing-impacts-your-retail-or-online-stores-marketing-efforts
Nuvonium article: https://www.nuvonium.com/blog/view/manufacturer-suggest-retail-price-msrp-vs-minimum-advertised-price-map-expl

fwiw, Here's the Rising Sun Retail Pledge agreement: https://cmon.com/news/rising-sun-kickstarter-retail-pledge

Honestly the whole thing seems like a microcosm of what my generation and younger seem to be dealing with (especially Millenials) - when we ask why things are the way they are it's because capitalism and what are you some kind of commie?

And now there's MAPs and price fixing and collusion everywhere without a hint of irony about what this means for the justifications for the current state of things.

At the end of the day if your plan is for the long term you can not expect to have the same business model throughout your entire existence.

Exactly, businesses will adapt and survive or they won't. Trying to force people to keep buying horses after the advent of the affordable automobile is a dead end.

 John Prins wrote:


I agree that brick and mortar stores should use online sales, but they still won't be able to compete with stores lacking that brick and mortar presence.

From my current 3 main 'go-to' online stores, 2 of them have B&M stores. One of them has been trading since before the internet was a thing... I used to get their mail-order catalogues as a teenager.

B&M stores can compete with online-only retailers. Most of them just choose not to.

 ScarletRose wrote:
Honestly the whole thing seems like a microcosm of what my generation and younger seem to be dealing with (especially Millenials) - when we ask why things are the way they are it's because capitalism and what are you some kind of commie?

And now there's MAPs and price fixing and collusion everywhere without a hint of irony about what this means for the justifications for the current state of things.

At the end of the day if your plan is for the long term you can not expect to have the same business model throughout your entire existence.

Exactly, businesses will adapt and survive or they won't. Trying to force people to keep buying horses after the advent of the affordable automobile is a dead end.

It's not a "your generation" thing. Pretty much every generation since... at least WWII has grown up in an era where economy of scale has driven down pricing to incredibly low levels that make an avalanche of unnecessary things incredibly affordable. The flip side is that we grow up without a real appreciation for just how narrow things run unless we decide to try and make a living out of it. Everything is a matter of scale. Can I sell something for 200% of what it cost to make or is it possible to sell 20 of them at just 120%? Even the online discounter are subject to this. The reason you don't see ever LGS jumping into this is that its really only works for the top dog and a couple of lackeys. If there were as many online stores as big as Miniature Market, the discounts wouldn't hold anyway because the sale volumes wouldn't support the business.

Honestly, big chains taking notice of the industry is likely a big reason why we're seeing this. They're pretty much the ultimate example of huge sale volumes allow for big success on slim margins. For Wal-Mart to buy your games though, they're going to only be willing to sell them at a competitive industry price and if your game is only actually successful at 30% off MSRP... well, Wal-Mart is going to insist being able to sell at the same price... but you're still only going to get the 5-10% of their now lower price you would have before. That's the real truth in "perceived value"; if everyone is buying your product as a discount, then real value of the product is far less than your MSRP. Most companies just aren't receiving a big enough cut of their MSRP to survive on much less (I mean, assuming they want it to actually pay for things like their home and stuff) and even if they did cut the MSRP it wouldn't matter if discounters continue to drive the value you down.

That's essentially what MAP is about. It's designed to slow how much pushing volume over margins can drive down the value of a product so that the manufacturer can continue to sell that product (to distribution chains that help ensure significant sale volumes to enable production runs in quantiities that can make the MSRP as cheap as it is) at a price that keeps the lights on. It's really nothing new. Video games, movies, toys, pretty much anything sold in any sort of volume probably has one in place. It's just new to games and because of that, we're getting a good look at what happens when the machine breaks down.

I'd actually recommend looking into economics; even if you're not the business type. I'm surely not, but its pretty fascinating to read up on and see how it all works... or doesn't, as the case may be. In any case, its pretty humbling to look into the numbers and get an idea just how many copies of something generally has to be sold to even make minimum wage. If I've learned anything, its that I really don't envy anyone trying to make a living out of this industry and when it comes to things like MAPs, the reasons are far more reaching than just the increased cost to me as the consumer.