Why I refuse to support my FLGS

[Tetsubo]

This is absurd. So, browsers in a store shopping around for the best price are unethical. That's a good one. "False pretenses." Since a pretense is, by definition, false, would that make a "false pretense" a true motive? More pointedly: Since when did a shopper become morally obligated to make a purchase just by walking through the shop's door? "Inflicting wear on materials"? Equally ridiculous. But here's the cake-taker: "...and taking up space." Ye gods! I take up space everywhere I go! Is there no escape from my criminality?

If you own a store, and don't want people browsing in your store, shrink wrap everything and put up a big sign that says, "You Can Look at It after You've Bought It!"

I bet that'll help sales.

I went to a gaming store once that DID shrink wrap every book. I didn't "browse" at all and left a few minutes later. Part of the gaming book buying experience is browsing. I like to look at the books lay-out and art. See what ratio the fluff-to-crunch is (I'm a big crunch fan). This particular store lost my money and any future money from me.

 

[Tetsubo]

I think the common, current, theory is that welcoming browsers eventually leads to greater sales. Of course, it needs to be coupled with other incentives.

There are always going to be people who come into a store to browse around. I do it all the time. I don't conciously go into a store to browse a book and then order it online, and I honestly think that's MORALLY wrong. Maybe that's silly, but using somebody else's time and money with no intention toward recompense strikes me as wrong. Browsing doesn't, because I may or may not buy the book and if I'm comfortable somewhere I might very well begin to shop there regularly.

Value-Adds need to be there ... even if you can batch-order some dice and give out a Gamescience die with every RPG book purchase ... something kitchy and not particularly expensive that people don't get when they order online, something that keeps them coming back, like the potential to "collect 'em all" with cool dice or something else of the sort.

--fje

Look at brick & mortar B&N stores. They provide big comfy chairs so that you can browse all you want. And they make a profit. I realize that gaming store margins are much tighter but browsing does up sales.

 

[Dristram]

I guess it's all a personality thing. Personally, I've never test-driven a car without initial intention of purchasing it. And I have never taken the food samplers without the thought of possibly purchasing it. And I don't have any personal friends who do either. Or at least that I'm aware of. So, to me, it's shocking that people do shop at a store with full intention of buying someplace else. I guess I'm naive.

Still no one has answered my question of what's stopping you from ordering from Amazon and stocking that way at a small markup above them.

I'll answer it as soon as I make sure I understand what you're asking. Are you saying, why not buy a $34.95 book from Amazon at $23 and then sell it for $26 or something?

(-Brad Daeda
Owner, Gamer's Keepe
Vacaville, CA

 

[freebfrost]

Gosh, why no, I haven't heard of that. :rolls eyes: Window shopping is looking at the wares from outside the store through the... wait for it... window! You haven't gone in and handled the product the storekeeper owns or taken up any of his attention or employees time.

Yes, that's unethical. Go ahead and do it, I didn't say it was illegal.

You say it's unethical. Based on what? Your idea of what is ethical, or what works in the business world?

Did I sign a contract with Shopowners, Inc. saying what my consumer behavior is supposed to be?

If you are using ethics in the loosest terms, you are equating this behavior as being something societally "bad." How is this behavior bad per se?

Realtors and home sellers are aware folks are coming through to "see what the neighbor's house is like" with no intention of buying it. Every homeowner is also a potential homeseller in the same market as everyone else. Realtors also use the event to sell their services to future potential homesellers. Rarely is some publisher going into a store to check the competitors products to do industry research with the intent ahead of time to never purchase.

Do you really believe that? That Monte Cook, for example, never reads competitor products without the intent to purchase them?

Frankly, I haven't gone house hunting never intending to purchase a home. I only house hunt the houses I can afford. As a neighbor I do on occassion go into a home having an open house never intending to buy it but then everytime it has been a neighbor that wants and expects the neighbors to come check it out because this is almost the only way to generate word of mouth "advertising". Neighbors come check the house out and there is a chance the neighbor will pass along the prospect to their friends or relatives who are in the market for houses.

In the marketplace, the average consumer is what drives consumer behavior. Because your opinion is different does not make it prevalent in how the business economy works.

And you just verified this behavior in this example.

Are you paying your neighbor a fair "price" for wasting their time? Does the opportunity cost of your house visit really make up for their lost time and energy spent in selling their house? No, you aren't. But you are trying to cover up your "deceit" by being "good friends" with the neighbors. This isn't about being friendly with the neighbors or the storeowner, this is about the business of selling products.

If you want to browse, go browse where there is a retailer that is cheap/helpful/provising enough ancillary services. If you going to buy online, there is very good chance you won't be telling you friends to go shop at the retailer, but are telling them to shop online. The shopkeeper is not getting even potential word of mouth advertising from you.

If I see a good book at a gaming store while on vacation, I likely won't buy it just to lug around in my suitcase, but I'll buy it when I get home. I'm not supporting that local store wherever it is, nor am I doing any advertising for it. I doubt I'll ever tell anyone about it. So you advocate me purchasing that book there instead of getting it at home then?

Besides, from your example, everyone in the product chain didn't get their money from your purchase. The storeowner, whose products you went and handled, didn't get his cut. The publisher isn't paying the storeowner to display his books. The storeowner got nothing and he is well within your "product chain".

The storeowner who didn't get his cut is not a part of the buying equation at that point. They lost my business. His wear and tear is part and parcel of doing business - depreciation.

The ethics is the intentional deceit towards the storeowner. You know the storeowner is hoping for your business, and as such puts the product he owns out for his potential customers to examine. Coming in knowing ahead of time you will never be a potential customer is what I'm talking about.

Intentional deceit? I didn't tell the owner "I'm going to buy this today," and leave the store. I looked at his selections and left to buy elsewhere. Deceit implies active deception -and simply saying that the storeowner is "hoping for my business," does not imply that I am actively deceiving him. Every business "hopes" for customers. The Shell station hopes I buy their gas, but I bought from BP today. Because I drove through the Shell station parking lot, did I imply that I was buying from them?

In economic terms you are a free rider , you are free riding on the back of the storekeeper and his or her paying customers. You are getting something for nothing. You are using the services put out for paying customers intending to never pay for them.

What resource did I use exactly? The book is still there. The storeowner can still sell it, or if it is damaged, return it for another. There is no loss to the storeowner.

 

[Tetsubo]

I buy most of my gaming books online. I visit FLGS for used books, sales and discounted items. I also occasionaly enjoy the experience of "immersion" that comes from visiting a FLGS. I can get books from Amazon at a discount and if over $25 with free shipping. I tend to order two books at the beginning of each month. Thanks to EN World and other sites I can buy most books with confidence in their content. Love those reviews...

Though Serpent Kingdoms was a wash...

 

[freebfrost]

Haven't said anything remotely close to implying business shouldn't try to account for wear and tear. Haven't even tried to paint the "market actions" as having any ethics at all. I have and do label the individual people who have no other purpose to shopowners than inflicting "wear and tear" on shopowners as unethical though.

Well, I don't think we are talking about people who intentionally go in to shops and destroy items. My perspective is for an average person who checks out something in the shop but decides, for whatever reason, to purchase elsewhere.

 

[Tetsubo]

Well, I don't think we are talking about people who intentionally go in to shops and destroy items. My perspective is for an average person who checks out something in the shop but decides, for whatever reason, to purchase elsewhere.

At one time (prior to the Internet) I shopped at FLGS exclusively. I would often look at a particular book multiple times over the course of weeks before I made the decision to buy it.

And I have in fact bought gaming books while on vacation. My honeymoon in fact.

The assertion that I am somehow "damaging" a shopowner by browsing is absurd. Just part of the "cost" of doing business.

 

[Shining Dragon]

What resource did I use exactly? The book is still there. The storeowner can still sell it, or if it is damaged, return it for another. There is no loss to the storeowner.

A bricks-and-mortar store (most of the time) offers people the ability to browse the physical book before purchase. They have to pay for the space (convenient to customers thus costs more than a warehouse in the barrens) and have to pass on the costs to the customer via higher prices than an online store.

The resource you used therefore is the space made available for you to browse. So using the space without compensating the owner for it, especially if you go and make your purchases elsewhere (online) due to lower prices, can be seen to be unethical. And have you ever considered what you'll do if the store goes out of business? It'd be hypocritical of you to complain if you never supported the store.

Also I think you have a strange idea about returning damaged books. If its damaged during shipping then they can return it. But being damaged by the customers? If all damaged books are able to be returned then ultimately someone is going to pay the cost - usually the customers through increased prices (due to increased cost of doing business).


I happen to be in the good position of being able to purchase online from my bricks-and-mortar store and save money - at the cost of waiting up to one week for the books to arrive.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

You say it's unethical. Based on what? Your idea of what is ethical, or what works in the business world?

As I explicit stated it with regards to joyriding in a car under the pretense of purchasing it, what is unethical is that you effective have stolen fuel and the salesman's time which could have been spent holding the hand of an actual prospective buyer (he gets paid on commission after all), and risking driving the car in traffic where an accident could happen. All the while pretending to be something that you were not... a potential customer.

TANSTAAFL applies here. Someone pays for this free riding.

Ethics has nothing to do with what is legal or contractual. I'm sorry you think it has to.

Do you really believe that? That Monte Cook, for example, never reads competitor products without the intent to purchase them?

No I don't believe Monte goes into a retailer and treats that storeowner like a public library for his competitor research. I do believe Monte would buy his competitor's products, or potentially receive them gratis from the competitor. I do believe Monte might even go into a game store to purchase something and while he is there glance through his competitors product.

But you are trying to cover up your "deceit" by being "good friends" with the neighbors. This isn't about being friendly with the neighbors or the storeowner, this is about the business of selling products.

Hardly, I am being invited in to inspect. Houses are prepared for heavy traffic of visitors. I know this, I have sold two houses in my life. I haven't said anything about being good friends either. Homesellers know that bringing in the neighbors to view the home can potentially drive word of mouth for a person who is in the market for homes. I have done this twice, as I said, I haven't met a realtor who didn't think that bringing in the neighbors was anything other than a benefit to selling the home.

I have yet to meet a storekeeper who thinks bringing in people who only buy online everything sold in his store to come into his store and check out the things being bought is a good thing. I have met storekeepers who know that free riders are part of the cost of business of running a retail store.

If I see a good book at a gaming store while on vacation, I likely won't buy it just to lug around in my suitcase, but I'll buy it when I get home. I'm not supporting that local store wherever it is, nor am I doing any advertising for it. I doubt I'll ever tell anyone about it. So you advocate me purchasing that book there instead of getting it at home then?

One single book so inconveniences you that packing it in your suitcase or carry-on bag is too much? If you go into a store with the thought in mind you could buy something (a mini, booster pack of cards...), you haven't done anything to violate that shopkeeper's law I mentioned even if you don't buy.

The storeowner who didn't get his cut is not a part of the buying equation at that point. They lost my business. His wear and tear is part and parcel of doing business - depreciation.

Correction, they never had your business to begin with but you took use of their services. Because you didn't transact the purchase with them doesn't mean they weren't part of the cycle. You weren't an invisible phantom when you walked into his store and cracked the book open to check it out, and his store wasn't a public library.

However, if in your mind there was a chance the store could have gotten you business now or in the future, you're not doing anything to violate the Storekeeper's law I'm talking about.

Intentional deceit? I didn't tell the owner "I'm going to buy this today," and leave the store. I looked at his selections and left to buy elsewhere. Deceit implies active deception -and simply saying that the storeowner is "hoping for my business," does not imply that I am actively deceiving him.

If you went in knowing you would never buy anything, ever, from the store owner, yet pretend to be a potential customer, and handle what he owns. You are deceiving by acting as a potential customer.

What resource did I use exactly? The book is still there. The storeowner can still sell it, or if it is damaged, return it for another. There is no loss to the storeowner.

His time, his attention better spent with somone who will help him pay his own costs to display what you are handling.

 

[Dristram]

Firstly, FLGS stands for Friendly Local Game Store

I don't make enough use of them to be loyal to them when they jack the prices through the roof. <snip> I don't hate small store owners, one of my friends is one, but I will not buy from him if he jacks the price and he knows it.

I'm curious what your definition of "jack the prices" is.

(-Brad Daeda
Owner, Gamer's Keepe
Vacaville, CA