Dear Hasbro: about those minis

[Vigilance]

Some of us do have our mortgage money on the line. Just because we've choosen products other than minis doesn't mean we don't know anything about business & risk. My most successful business ventures have been about ignoring my industry's conventional wisdom & changing the rules of the game. I've found it much more risky to do otherwise. What people tell you is impossible is often not only possible, but the key to success. Of course, it isn't easy, but that's only to be expected.

Right, but this isnt about WOTC slavishly adhering to conventional wisdom.

They have tried non-randomized minis before and they've failed every time. Most recently, the Orc packs people mentioned, that were cancelled before release because of a lack of orders.

You act like they never tried or don't have market data.

And it isn't about having your mortgage on the line. What I was responding to was his willingness to spend SOMEONE ELSE's money. He wants WOTC to spend *their* money, or at least risk it, by moving away from a business model that they know works towards one that might work.

Or barring that, if a poster is willing to give him 2 million of THEIR money he is willing to risk that.

In short, he expressed a desire to risk everyone's money but his own.

That makes one short on credibility in my book.

 

[BryonD]

I was going to add something similar. Merrick's law is a convenient explanation.... until someone figures out a way to defy the so called 'law' profitably.

Happens all the time in business. How many mp3 players were there, then iPod came out. There is always innovation. Who knows.. some intrepid person in China may figure out a better way to cast these things (enough Engineers there to work on it) and then look out... then all these folks will sound as absurd as the ones who told Mr. Ford that the assembly line was a waste of time.

Well, the understanding that the "law" describes current market reality is pretty obviously inferred. There is a difference between being wrong and being right until the boundary conditions change.

 

[janax]

the FLGS here has about 10 of the Endor packs gathering dust on his shelf. The same FLGS that has gone through 20+ cases of each DDM release since Archfiends. Not to say 20 cases is a lot, I know people who buy almost hat many on their own, but he only sells them as boosters.
He can't give away Dreamblade, but DDM and SWM (to a lesser extent) fly off the shelves. Why would he want to mess with a good thing? All the non-random games are collecting dust and taking up room on his shelves.

 

[Storm Raven]

No no... YOU have to risk YOUR money.

Then you're in exactly the same boat as WOTC.

Well, not exactly. The guys making the decisions at WotC aren't risking their own money. They are risking the stockholder's money, and for the most part, they have little or no stock relative to the total amount of stock out there.

Give me a couple million to finance a start-up company and I'll try the marketing plan. With stockholder money. Just like the decision makers at WotC.

 

[Mark CMG]

the FLGS here has about 10 of the Endor packs gathering dust on his shelf. The same FLGS that has gone through 20+ cases of each DDM release since Archfiends. Not to say 20 cases is a lot, I know people who buy almost hat many on their own, but he only sells them as boosters.
He can't give away Dreamblade, but DDM and SWM (to a lesser extent) fly off the shelves. Why would he want to mess with a good thing? All the non-random games are collecting dust and taking up room on his shelves.

Could his store survive selling nothing but DDM (and SWM)?

 

[kenobi65]

Well, not exactly. The guys making the decisions at WotC aren't risking their own money. They are risking the stockholder's money, and for the most part, they have little or no stock relative to the total amount of stock out there.

Give me a couple million to finance a start-up company and I'll try the marketing plan. With stockholder money. Just like the decision makers at WotC.

Well, it's "their money" from the standpoint of the fact that it's their responsibility, and if their decisions are poor ones, and lose money, they'll be out of a job.

Even if it isn't technically "their money", they still have a lot riding on making a smart decision...and that includes, ultimately, their mortgages.

 

[molonel]

Molonel, I agree that the Buy It Now sellers on eBay are much less harrowing than the auctions. I started with the auctions a couple of years ago, and found it very intense and frustrating. One of my favourite sellers is Lee's. He has free shipping if you buy 10+ auctions, and it applies to both US and Canada!

Well, that makes four new dealers that I've added to my favorites because of this discussion. Thank you.

If anyone else wants to suggest distributors, there are people watching for link like this.

No no... YOU have to risk YOUR money. Then you're in exactly the same boat as WOTC. Funny how things look differently the nanosecond it becomes YOUR rent money on the line and not a company's huh.

It doesn't look particularly different to me. I just don't have several million sitting around doing nothing. I don't even have several thousand sitting around doing nothing.

Do you?

I think this is a business opportunity for someone, but I'm a buyer of miniatures. I have no particular ambitions to sell them. In a similar manner, though I can tell you the difference between a good beer and a bad beer, I have no particular ambitions to set up a home brewing operation, nor do I feel that I must in order to have opinions about beer.

Thank you for your glorious non-point. Now, unless you are a stock holder in WotC, would you mind NOT taking comments about their business practices so personally?

Right, but this isnt about WOTC slavishly adhering to conventional wisdom. They have tried non-randomized minis before and they've failed every time. Most recently, the Orc packs people mentioned, that were cancelled before release because of a lack of orders. You act like they never tried or don't have market data. And it isn't about having your mortgage on the line. What I was responding to was his willingness to spend SOMEONE ELSE's money. He wants WOTC to spend *their* money, or at least risk it, by moving away from a business model that they know works towards one that might work. Or barring that, if a poster is willing to give him 2 million of THEIR money he is willing to risk that. In short, he expressed a desire to risk everyone's money but his own. That makes one short on credibility in my book.

Nearly everyone in this discussion, including you, lacks credibility in that regard, so unfortunately, that sword cuts your knees out from under you with the same masterful stroke that it severs mine, my friend.

Storm Raven has also answered this point adequately, as well.

 

[Mark CMG]

Well, the understanding that the "law" describes current market reality is pretty obviously inferred.

I'm not sure that is true. I get the feeling that some who put that forth do so as if the model is untouchable rather than simply the most successful currently.

 

[Storm Raven]

Well, it's "their money" from the standpoint of the fact that it's their responsibility, and if their decisions are poor ones, and lose money, they'll be out of a job.

Yes, but all they risk is the possibility that they will have to look elsewhere for employment. Given the state of the gaming industry, many people at WotC could probably find better paying jobs elsewhere, so the financial risk isn't that much of an issue.

 

[rgard]

Well, not exactly. The guys making the decisions at WotC aren't risking their own money. They are risking the stockholder's money, and for the most part, they have little or no stock relative to the total amount of stock out there.

Give me a couple million to finance a start-up company and I'll try the marketing plan. With stockholder money. Just like the decision makers at WotC.

Nope.

Maybe not their own money invested in the project, but if they spend the company's money on a project that fails, then they have just risked their jobs.

Thanks,
Rich