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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Corjay" data-source="post: 4470618" data-attributes="member: 52839">I agree with dmccoy.I think it's my own meaning that got missed. Their overhead as a company is going to be reflected in their overhead per product. I said "per product" because it highlights how much money they are actually saving by being a larger business. They have to pay more employees, but their ratio of products to employees is greater, saving them money as they get more product for less payout. They are in a higher tax bracket, but get much greater tax breaks, as well as privileges, that a mom & pop doesn't.The quality of the product compared to the industry standard is a direct reflection on their overhead in comparison to their supply & demand. WOTC produces the very highest quality books. If their overhead were more than smaller businesses, they would be producing lower-quality books than the industry standard, not higher. Big business is about continually seeking to reduce overhead in order to improve their product, not in order to maintain the status quo.The recent cutbacks are due to overzealous business decisions and maybe the sky-rocketing economy, not because their overhead continues to rise (inflation aside).I still don't understand how you come to this conclusion. How are WOTC's money needs going to damage the industry? Any void they create will be filled by other companies eager to take the top of the heap. Paizo and White Wolf would gladly take that title. That's how capitalism works. This does no damage to the industry.WOTC has a corporate model. The corporate model has proven to be sustainable thousands of times over. What specific model are you referring to? Is there a specific flaw in WOTC's model that's different than other companies? It seems to me that you're saying that because they're a subsidiary, they'll fail. But seeing as there are thousands of subsidiaries out there that operate just fine, how is it that this specific subsidiary isn't going to succeed?</blockquote>

Verification