Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 4349609" data-attributes="member: 18280">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</blockquote>

Verification