Decline of RPG sales

[MongooseMatt]

I have also gotten the vibe that the distributor often sends stuff that they want to, rather than what's ordered.

Close.

What we have seen in some areas (Canada is good for this) is that a distributor will not order certain items automatically, unless a retailer puts in an order.

However, when a retailer puts in an order, it is reported as being out of stock - and so gets ignored! As a Catch-22 goes, this one is up there.

This, by no means, happens throughout the distribution chain but it is very irritating when you do hear about it. Ultimately, it means we have to do a distributor's job for them, in terms of marketing and support - it is no use complaining about it, you just have to swallow the situation and do it, or face losing sales.

This is rarer in the US, where there are several distrobutors for a retailer to go to. However, if you live in another country and do not see books for at least a month after release, this is probably what is happening. So, badger your retailer and get them to badger their distributor.

There is _nowhere_ in the world that should be more than a couple of weeks behind the US in terms of releases, with the possible exception of Australia and New Zealand (shipping times are a factor there). Europe and Canada should not be more than a week or two behind, at the most. You'll see this with good retailers who also happen to use good distributors (Leisure Games springs to mind here, though there are many others - I mention them because they are the shop I often use!).

BTW, Chris, if you are reading this, drop me a line with regards to the Diamond book distribution - there are some things you might find it helpful to know.

 

[Dinkeldog]

SBMC, please moderate your tone when you post here. In particular, as Charles Ryan does post here, we do not appreciate people calling him a liar flat out. In addition, calling eyebeams a hypocrite is rude.

In general please consider this to be the equivalent of Morrus' living room; then maintain decorum as if you were in someone's living room. The moderators' philosophy is that this best helps us maintain a civil tone throughout.

 

[wedgeski]

And exactly where does this SKU thing come from? That is not even a term; SKU is a bar code system; UNITS are what is used per product and per product line, and per brand name.

SKU = Stock Keeping Unit, a saleable item. Eyebeams' usage was correct.

 

[WizarDru]

I mean, seriously, they stock the book, so they'd keep one copy on the shelf anyway, did they only expect to sell one of them?

That's what you call a self-fulfilling prophecy. They DID only sell one copy. Of course, what they didn't do was get any sales beyond that copy because the consumer goes elsewhere. Which is what the web has empowered the consumer to do. When I can't locate something at a store and I don't need that item NOW, I may just opt to get it from Amazon or the like.

So what I seem to be getting out of this discussion is that companies that succeed do so in spite of the distribution channel, as opposed to because of it. If the industry faces a threat, it sounds to me like this is the root cause.

 

[SBMC]

SBMC, please moderate your tone when you post here. In particular, as Charles Ryan does post here, we do not appreciate people calling him a liar flat out. In addition, calling eyebeams a hypocrite is rude.

In general please consider this to be the equivalent of Morrus' living room; then maintain decorum as if you were in someone's living room. The moderators' philosophy is that this best helps us maintain a civil tone throughout.

I apologize for the tone.

I did not call Charles Ryan a liar; on the contrary actually.

 

[SBMC]

SKU = Stock Keeping Unit, a saleable item. Eyebeams' usage was correct.

Not in financial terms it is not.

 

[buzz]

No offense, but why are your and eyebeams' posts always so negative? Or am I just reading the negative ones? Apologies in advance for possibly overstepping the bounds of Morrus' living room. :\

You clearly underestimate the propensity of gamers to debate and speculate, even when provided with accurate data.

Perhaps. It'd be nice if we could at least know that something we were basing such debate upon was undisputed fact.

 

[SBMC]

No offense, but why are your and eyebeams' posts always so negative? Or am I just reading the negative ones

Good question.

Perhaps. It'd be nice if we could at least know that something we were basing such debate upon was undisputed fact.

In discussions such as these a lot of statements are made with the tone of strength behind them in an attempt to validate them as being true when in reality they are conjecture and/or opinion. This leads to more heated discussions with those who are actually in the know. If there was undisputed fact then there would be little room for debut, conjecture, opinion touting, dismissal of other/related facts as false (without proof of why they are false) or mud slinging. However, if undisputed, if one did not like that “undisputed fact” then the “facts” that underlie that “fact” would then somehow come into question…typical of most Bboards.

Issues that do have a discernable answer that is not yet answered are usually the most argued.

There is no doubt that we would all fair better at discussing what we are all experts at (at some level or another) which is gaming. And it usually leads to far less heated discussions (of which I am equally as guilty as the next, if not more so).

 

[Warbringer]

It should be pointed out that the original topic of this thead was a decline in sales. There's no evidence (that I've been privy to) saying that there's been a recent decline in the number of people who play RPGs. These are separate issues, and the thread is ostensibly discussing the former.

Sorry. I simply meant to highlight the point that increasing sales does not mean increasing player base. Agreed, a different topic.

Ryan's numbers do not include D&D minis, and counts the number of people playing at least on a monthly basis. It is up from the numbers WotC quoted the year before, the year before that, and significantly up from the WotC market survey in '99 which put the tabletop RPG popuation at 2.25 million. Whether this is an actual increase or different methodology, I dunno.

I never seen anywhere him exclude the minis. I know that from an accounting perspective the mini sales are hitting the D+D cost center.

Apologies. I mixed up the US numbers and worldwide numbers. I know at Gen Con Ryan estimated 6-6.5 million players world wide.

 

[buzz]

I never seen anywhere him exclude the minis. I know that from an accounting perspective the mini sales are hitting the D+D cost center.

The 4.6 million figure has been specifically stated by Ryan to be players of the RPG, not RPG+Minis.