Death of the LGS

[Mallus]

@Mallus: As soon as we have a mod response about what we are allowed to discuss re: economics, I'll be happy to answer you.

I have to admit, you've piqued my curiosity...

 

[Corjay]

No. The term originates from the logical fallacy. Nor is your parenthezied description in "1" quite correct either, though it's close.

Number "2" is the colloquial usage originating from people hearing the correct version used and misunderstanding it due to the word "beg". It's not fairly commonplace to use the incorrect version, but it is still incorrect.

This isn't the forum for this argument though, so I'll stop there. I regret pointing out in the first place, knowing the reaction it would produce.

Dude. Step into Logic by Patrick J. Hurley. That is relying on the original use of the term in logic, which fits with my #2, but which shows a more purposeful intent. Also known psychologically as avoidance. The social term existed before the logic term. It is in our language not as a result of philosophy, but as a result of common idiom. Hurley states: "Begging the question occurs when an arguer uses some form of phraseology that tends to conceal the questionably true character of a key premise." I stated the social occurrence in #2, but the logic term by Hurley is derived from it, not visa versa. Logic books list it as a fallacy as long as it meets the intent of the arguer to avoid the question. However, An Introduction to Reasoning by Toulmin, Rieke, and Janik explains it as "when we make a claim and then argue on its behalf by advancing "grounds" whose meaning is simply equivelant to that of the original claim." (Italics theirs.) They then show three different logical fallacies that fall into that blanket (but don't give the names as I do here): Assertus Argumentum, Popularis Argumenum, and Circular Reasoning. Just because I stated loosely off the top of my head doesn't mean I was wrong. Just incomplete. Is this complete enough for you? I have more.

The fact is, it is a common term, and therefore is NOT being misused, as common use determines its usage. To correct people every time they use it in a socially acceptable way is to show snobbish elitism to a degree that is not socially acceptable.

Storyteller01: you used the term in an acceptable way. Ignore anyone that tells you otherwise.

 

[Storyteller01]

Your question is based on a faulty premise: Wizards of the Coast doesn't "allow" Amazon to sell their books. Wizards of the Coast produces books that then enter the supply chain. They don't sell them to Amazon at one price and LGS's at another.

Then why is it that amazon can afford a 50% discount AND ignoring release dates when those buying from distributors cannot?

 

[mlund]

You absolutely sure about this? I can tell you as a fact that it is normal practice to reduce prices based upon volume purchase, and your average B&M doesn't have the same volume as Amazon.

I don't think that was the issue the post I was replying to addressed. He was talking about one company (Amazon) giving another company (Wizards) some sort of "incentive" to command a unique price-point for their purchases. My point is, there is a not a unique price-point for Amazon created by a scheme of kick-backs and golf-course outings that creates an "Amazon price" and a "not Amazon price."

There's a 100,000 unit price a 10,000 unit price, a 1,000 unit price, etc. including variants like: "100,000 units of [D&D Product], 10,000 units of [Other, non-D&D WotC Product]."

None of those prices are linked to the customer's identity beyond the volume of units they purchase from the vendor / manufacturer.

The LGS is allowed to buy the "Amazon lot" at the "Amazon price." It just isn't in the LGS's best interests to do so. They want a smaller lot so they pay the smaller lot price. If Amazon wants a smaller lot, they ALSO pay the smaller lot price.

This ties back into the point I made about why Amazon doesn't selling every product they can get their hands on at a 40%. If they can't clear the inventory fast and in large volume they can't by large lots at large lot prices they can't sell at such a steep discount compared to a regular retailer (who has the convenience of immediate access to stock for the customer).

It's been a while since I was behind the counter dealing with WotC products coming into an LGS. I guess back then WotC products were still moving through distributors and wholesalers before they hit the FLGS. I take it Wizards is doing a lot more direct sales to retailers, now?

Then why is it that amazon can afford a 50% discount AND ignoring release dates when those buying from distributors cannot?

I think you're confusing Buy.com and Amazon.com, if I recall the incident correctly.

I've already illustrated why a company buying in huge lots and avoiding the Distributor (Amazon) can feasibly sell at a much lower price them someone who is buying small lots from a Distributor (LGS).

You LGS could technically sell at the same price as Amazon, but he'd lose his shirt unless he bought and sold the same volume as Amazon.

The old Supply Chain model (which may not apply to some WotC products anymore, apparently) was that one business bought a giant lot (Wholesaler) at the huge lot price. He broke it down into smaller lots for more regional companies and sold it at a mark-up to cover his business's expenses and profits. Those regional businesses (Distributors) in turn broke those lots down into smaller lots for either more narrow Distributors or Retailers, marking it up again to make their profit. Finally the Retailer takes those lots and breaks them down into individual items for sale, marking it up again to make their profit. Have you ever been a preferred customer at your FLGS? Brining in a significant amount of reliable business to my FLGS gets me a discount on what I buy from my Retailer.

Here's a question for you: How much revenue do you think Wizards of the Coast sees, on average, from each book with an MSRP of $30 that they manage to sell?

- Marty Lund

 

[jgerman]

Dude. Step into Logic by Patrick J. Hurley. That is relying on the original use of the term in logic, which fits with my #2, but which shows a more purposeful intent. Also known psychologically as avoidance. The social term existed before the logic term. It is in our language not as a result of philosophy, but as a result of common idiom. Hurley states: "Begging the question occurs when an arguer uses some form of phraseology that tends to conceal the questionably true character of a key premise." I stated the social occurrence in #2, but the logic term by Hurley is derived from it, not visa versa. Logic books list it as a fallacy as long as it meets the intent of the arguer to avoid the question. However, An Introduction to Reasoning by Toulmin, Rieke, and Janik explains it as "when we make a claim and then argue on its behalf by advancing "grounds" whose meaning is simply equivelant to that of the original claim." (Italics theirs.) They then show three different logical fallacies that fall into that blanket (but don't give the names as I do here): Assertus Argumentum, Popularis Argumenum, and Circular Reasoning. Just because I stated loosely off the top of my head doesn't mean I was wrong. Just incomplete. Is this complete enough for you? I have more.

Edit: Nevermind, those that misuse the term will defend it to the end ... it's not worth my time. Have a nice day.

 

[Storyteller01]

Accepting greater bulk sales, even at a lower price than those given to distributiors, is an incentive. Especially if they promise to purchase under the same terms with furture products.

I think you're confusing Buy.com and Amazon.com, if I recall the incident correctly.

No, I'm not. We had customers coming in bragging about receiving their copies from amazon early. When we decided to match amazons discount to sell the books faster, we discovered a discount from retail of over 50%.

 

[mlund]

Accepting a lower price for bulk sales is an incentive, especially if they promise to purchase under the same terms with furture products.

If that's what you mean by "incentive" then sure. I thought you meant outside of the normal transaction being offered to facilitate getting what you want: bribes, kick-backs, bonuses, stock-options, etc.

I think the term "incentive" actually goes the other way here. Lower prices are incentive that Wizards of the Coast offers to buyers to get them to buy early, often, and in large quantities.

Volume, timing, and credit-worthiness are all legitimate reasons why one purchaser may get a better price-per-unit than another one. For example, many LGS's I know offer "pre-order" discounts on boxed product for reliable customers and people who are willing to pay in advance. (Cash or reliable credit earlier > the same money later.)

There are other sorts of purchasing incentives too. Sometimes I go looking for a comic on a Thursday but find the shop sold out of it before I got there. However, the guys with "pull boxes" stroll in on a Saturday and get their copy.

Heck, even businesses that work as both Distributors and Retailers will give me (a consumer) a different price than a store owner (mass buyer). They'll even let the store purchase on account and settle up at the end of the month but they'd be fools to do that with random consumers.

No, I'm not. We had customers coming in bragging about receiving their copies from amazon early. When we decided to match amazons discount to sell the books faster, we discovered a discount from retail of over 50%.

I haven't seen any early deliveries from Amazon, only Buy.com. I've seen no indication that Wizards condones the breaking of the street date on their product by Amazon or any other vendor.

- Marty Lund

 

[redcard]

Amazon Canada did that, I believe.. but not so much. I've heard more cases of Game stores breaking street date than Amazon cases, though. And more cases of Waldenbooks/B&N/Borders than that.

 

[Storyteller01]

I think the term "incentive" actually goes the other way here. Lower prices are incentive that Wizards of the Coast offers to buyers to get them to buy early, often, and in large quantities.

Volume, timing, and credit-worthiness are all legitimate reasons why one purchaser may get a better price-per-unit than another one. For example, many LGS's I know offer "pre-order" discounts on boxed product for reliable customers and people who are willing to pay in advance. (Cash or reliable credit earlier > the same money later.)

Then why aren't all distributors or LGS's offered this same incentive?

I haven't seen any early deliveries from Amazon, only Buy.com. I've seen no indication that Wizards condones the breaking of the street date on their product by Amazon or any other vendor.

- Marty Lund

By doing nothing to curtail the releases in Amazon or B&N, they have effectively condoned their actions. Wizard's won't do anything because whatever incestive has been established is batter than what they get from LGS's. It's unfortunate, but this is what happens when things get copied or spread for free on the internet. This and other actions taken may be indicative of resentment towards its customers. The gaming comunity, especially D&D, have not been great customers. We are labeled by some distributors as being some of the cheapest folks in the industry.

It's unfortunate. These actions will eventually kill the game.

 

[redcard]

TBy doing nothing to curtail the releases in Amazon or B&N, they have effectively condoned their actions.

How do you know they've done nothing?