Death of the LGS

[Mallus]

My thoughts are, I would have to link to it from my website. I don't know what the fees are for Amazon Marketplace (AM), or how, exactly, it works, but from a "capturing my own business" point of view, I envision this as sorta shooting myself in the foot. Potential Customer (PC) looks me up online, clicks on amazon link, buys from there instead of coming to my store.

Scott, you've basically it got backwards. You're making the products you sell available on Amazon (there's no linking to Amazon from your site). It's similar to Half.com.

You place the items you want to sell on Amazon's Marketplace, when an Amazon shopper searches for that particular item, your item comes up. Obviously, you can't compete with items Amazon sells directly at a deep discount, however the Marketplace is full of product Amazon itself doesn't carry, so your only competition would be other small retailers and individual sellers selling through Amazon. In return, Amazon gets a commission and a transaction fee per sale.

Is this clearer?

Not taking advantage of Amazon Marketplace (or Half/Ebay) seems more like shooting yourself in the foot to me. Marketplace gives you access to Amazon's enormous customer base.

It's my belief that the recession (let's assume it's here for the nonce and eschew debate on whether or not it is a recession, downturn, or what have you) will have less impact on my product lines than other possible retail stores.

It think what recession-proofing gaming stores enjoy comes primarily from the fact that a significant number of the customers are collectors/completists with high salaries in healthy fields.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Again, keep it on topic. This is so far off topic as not to be relevant to this thread at all.

I disagree. The OP speaks directly to Amazon's marketing techniques, and an understanding of basic economics is required to discuss the topic. When claims are made that fly in the face of economic theory, then those claims need to be rebutted.

I would prefer that this thread stay open before a mod changes the status. If you wish to continue to discuss that issue, please fork it.

Ah, the well known "No economics" rule of EN World.

I let my main point stand, then, and can be forked if desired: The deep discounts offered by online retailers will only exist so long as there is a strong incentive for them to exist, and that strong incentive at this time comes in the form of being able to pick up a book right now at a brick & mortar store.


RC

 

[Mallus]

...and an understanding of basic economics is required to discuss the topic. When claims are made that fly in the face of economic theory, then those claims need to be rebutted.

Exactly.

The deep discounts offered by online retailers will only exist so long as there is a strong incentive for them to exist, and that strong incentive at this time comes in the form of being able to pick up a book right now at a brick & mortar store.

Really? So Half.com doesn't exert any price pressure on Amazon?

Let me ask you a simple question RC: if small, independent gaming stores are so valuable in keeping Amazon's prices for game books low, why haven't Amazon's prices for those items risen as the FSLG's have died off? Is Amazon waiting for the very last local game store to go under before it dances on it's grave, let's out of whoop, and then radically increases it's prices on gaming books? (I referred to this upthread as a belief in "Doctor Doom economics")

Borders, B&N and other chain retailers that sell gaming materials might pressure the big online retailers, but a relative handful of specialty shops?

Put another way, just because two businesses might sell the same product, it doesn't automatically make them competitors (in a meaningful sense of the word). Size and market penetration come into play. Kids selling bottled water at a busy intersection aren't helping keep the price of that same bottle of water low at the local Walmart. Neither are the kids w/the lemonade stand preventing an explosive rise in the price of lemonade.

RC, obviously you're correct to say competition keeps prices down, but by failing to acknowledge the difference between significant and insignificant competitors, you render that moot.

P.S. Even though Corjay is right that this is off-topic... music piracy was made possible by the spread of consumer broadband access. That's the technology I was talking about, not file-sharing clients. And broadband Internet providers like Comcast did not develop their services in response to high CD prices so that their customers could thieve music...

 

[Corjay]

It think what recession-proofing gaming stores enjoy comes primarily from the fact that a significant number of the customers are collectors/completists with high salaries in healthy fields.

I think gamersgambit was actually on the money in his point about entertainment getting the major money during a recession. The best and most classic example is the depression era. Despite the depression, movies were in full swing. We also have a new example. We are now eight years into this recession and massive budget movies are now a machine like never before. Collectors are actually least concerned with their collections during a recession. If Scott wants to survive, he's going to need to cater to the entertainment-seeking crowd.

I disagree. The OP speaks directly to Amazon's marketing techniques, and an understanding of basic economics is required to discuss the topic. When claims are made that fly in the face of economic theory, then those claims need to be rebutted.

There are two major economic views in capitalism: liberal and conservative. That's where we get the terms. Just because those two are practically mutually exclusive does not mean that one of them "flies in the face of economic theory". There are many economic theories based on those two views (In fact, as many theories as there are people thinking about them). Which one of those many economic theories are you saying that these things "fly in the face of"? Which politician's theory? Which economist's theory? Which capitalist's, socialist's, or fascist's theory?

 

[fuzzlewump]

Most I have been to smell funny. And, if they ask their customers to shower, their market is decimated.

 

[Turjan]

Let me ask you a simple question RC: if small, independent gaming stores are so valuable in keeping Amazon's prices for game books low, why haven't Amazon's prices for those items risen as the FSLG's have died off? Is Amazon waiting for the very last local game store to go under before it dances on it's grave, let's out of whoop, and then radically increases it's prices on gaming books? (I referred to this upthread as a belief in "Doctor Doom economics")

Borders, B&N and other chain retailers that sell gaming materials might pressure the big online retailers, but a relative handful of specialty shops?

The prices of games you only get at FLGS have risen on amazon. Most smaller games sell for cover price there. It's only the game books that you get at Borders of Barnes&Noble where you get your discounts at amazon.

 

[mlund]

Sorry, but you're just inviting more corrections to misstatements about economics when you make politically biased statements like this:

We are now eight years into this recession

This is factually incorrect. You can only even remotely posit this statement being true is when you redefine the academic and literal meaning of "recession" into politically biased Newspeak. The NBER is pretty much the academic authority on this sort of thing. We are not in the midst of a recession that started in 2000, regardless of how politically advantageous such a counter-factual narrative might be to some parties.

"Recession," is not interchangeable with "I'm not happy about the way the economy is playing out."

There are two major economic views in capitalism: liberal and conservative. That's where we get the terms.

Considering the distinction between political attitudes towards capitalism vs. scientific theories of economics, I'd say that's factually and historically incorrect. More accurately, there are two major schools of political thought as it relates to capitalism, labeled (often times mistakenly so) as "liberal" and "conservative" in the United States (once you get out of the U.S. those words have a different meaning in some areas).

Nevermind the fact that "economic Liberalism" and "political policies of so-called 'liberals' as they pertain to economic policy" are ridiculously at odds with one another.

Most of the controversial economic theories going around are socio-political theories about how to influence markets, rather than the more grounded scientific fundamentals of economics. Just because everyone and their dog has an "economic theory" doesn't mean those theories are equally valid as say - fundamentals of supply and demand, price points, and elasticity.

Sticking to the practical and statistical science of economics rather than the politically charged rhetoric addressing the merits and flaws of capitalism would probably be best.

- Marty Lund

 

[Mallus]

The prices of games you only get at FLGS have risen on amazon. Most smaller games sell for cover price there.

I'd bet most of those items aren't being sold by Amazon directly and are coming from FLGS's though Amazon Marketplace. Or is that wrong?

 

[Raven Crowking]

The prices of games you only get at FLGS have risen on amazon. Most smaller games sell for cover price there. It's only the game books that you get at Borders of Barnes&Noble where you get your discounts at amazon.

Exactly.

It is the idea that Amazon (or anyone) will sell for less unless they gain a direct and tangible benefit from doing so that flies in the face of economic theory.

Brick & Mortar retailers offer only two things that online retailers do not: the ability to browse, and the ability to pick up a book now. Online retailers have less overhead, but do not offer you a discount because they have less overhead. Like B&M retailers, online retailers will sell for the highest price that they think the market will bear....less overhead merely means more profit. If all retailers for a given product are online, it is in the best interests of them all to incrementally raise their prices to the status quo. This is, after all, exactly what happens with B&M retailers.

Conservative or liberal economic policies address whether this should be seen as a problem, and, if seen as a problem, what we should do about it. They don't deny the basic economic realities of the situation. (There are a few exceptions to this, of course, as in all things.)

Please note that, in past discussions on the same topic, several EN Worlders admitted to browsing in the B&M, and then purchasing online....effectively gaining the vaule of both models. It should be relatively obvious that this isn't a sustainable practice. Indeed, we already see many publishers reacting to this, creating pdfs that enable a limited form of online "browsing".

We, as gamers, have a vested interest in whether or not there will be B&M stores. If we don't care about browsing, about picking up a new book today, or being able to get a replacement book that got damaged earlier today for the game tonight, then we shouldn't care so much about the B&M stores. These are the things that, ultimately, they are best at providing.



RC

 

[Corjay]

Sorry, but you're just inviting more corrections to misstatements about economics when you make politically biased statements like this:



This is factually incorrect. You can only even remotely posit this statement being true is you redefine the academic and literal meaning of "recession" into politically biased Newspeak.

Considering the distinction between political attitudes towards capitalism vs. scientific theories of economics, I'd say that's factually and historically incorrect. More accurately, there are two major schools of political thought as it relates to capitalism, labeled (often times mistakenly so) as "liberal" and "conservative" in the United States (once you get out of the U.S. those words have a different meaning in some areas).

Nevermind the fact that "economic Liberalism" and "political policies of so-called 'liberals' as they pertain to economic policy" are ridiculously at odds with one another.

Most of the controversial economic theories going around are socio-political theories about how to influence markets, rather than the more grounded scientific fundamentals of economics. Just because everyone and their dog has an "economic theory" doesn't mean those theories are equally valid as say - fundamentals of supply and demand, price points, and elasticity.

Sticking to the practical and statistical science of economics rather than the politically charged rhetoric addressing the merits and flaws of capitalism would probably be best.

- Marty Lund

This is exactly why economics should not be a part of this discussion. Instead of taking my point home, the elitists want to pick at the inexactness of any statement. Pecking like this only irritates. It serves no purpose.