Why I refuse to support my FLGS

[Dannyalcatraz]

This “unethical” practice has proven to be a very successful business model for some of the hated giants of business such as Barnes&Nobles; where you can hang out and read all day long.

1) I have friends who work for B&N...they pointed out to me that their online prices are (usually) lower than store prices. Hang out there all day, buy their coffee, and you'll pay for that browsing.

However, most LGS's cannot provide that kind of space. B&N can because of the price of its goods, and a thriving online business.

2) Studies have shown that the longer people stay in a retail store, the more they buy, in general. Hang out there all day, and you may find yourself making more impulse buys, like magazines (which, BTW, are ALWAYS situated near the cash registers and/or doors) or new releases.

3) Once again, mere browsing isn't unethical- its browsing with 0% interest in buying. Of course, if you wind up making an impulse buy...

 

[S'mon]

1) I have friends who work for B&N...they pointed out to me that their online prices are (usually) lower than store prices.

FLGSes can do this too to an extent by not charging for p&p or keeping p&p costs low, to just the cost of the actual postage - after all it costs the customer money to visit the store, and it costs the shop money to staff the store, so there's scope for a cut on online sales. Most online retailers have high p&p charges (amazon certainly does), cutting it out can even things up without the retailer undercutting their bricks & mortar business.

 

[Dristram]

Thoughts on all this

The following is just my theory and perception of the state of the hobby game industry today.

FLGSs are still around currently because there are gamers who still buy from them. But FLGSs are not thriving. The move of gamers to buy online is hurting quality game stores more than non-quality ones. Quality game stores generally have higher overhead costs and so need higher sales to survive. They will spend extra money on rent to get a nice store in a nice location, and also on nice fixtures to make the store look nice and organized. So, as sales to the B&M stores shrink, the quality stores are the first to go, which leaves the poor quality, dark, dingy, and stinky stores, as the only ones around to shop at, as long as those owners have enough good business sense to manage to stay open.

It looks like a domino effect happened to get where things are today. Online game stores popped up, and gamers started buying from them. Soon after, some quality game stores got caught off-guard and closed because of the loss of sales, and others changed their product mix (ala exchanging RPGs for CCGs, comics, and/or miniatures) to survive. Many poor quality game stores survived just fine because of their low overhead. Gamers began complaining either they no longer had a local game store, or their local game store stopped carrying a good selection of RPGs, or their local game store was too dark, dingy, stinky and dusty, causing more gamers begin shopping online. Eventually, things settled to where they are now. Rare is the game store that is full of all the newly released RPGs because they no longer have the customer base to support it. More common are game stores focused on CCGs and miniature games. Even those products can be bought online, but a game store is often instrumental for players to find other players for those games. Especially game stores that provide play space and run events.

I guess my point to all this is game stores are adjusting to the RPG customer base’s move to the internet, thus why RPGs are not so dominant in many game stores anymore. If the gamers went back to buying their RPGs from B&M game stores, there would be an increase in RPG selection in the stores again, and an increase in the number quality game stores. From the looks of this thread, it ain’t gonna happen. But, from my point of view, as a gamer and game store owner, it would be nice for RPGs to be a major product line in game stores again.

(-Brad Daeda
Owner, Gamer's Keepe

 

[Dristram]

Here's a question

I'm curious about something.

If game manufacturers dropped their retail prices to the average online price for their books, would those of you who buy online buy them for that price at B&M stores even if the online prices dropped as well?

For example, lets say the Weapons of Legacy retail price from the manufacturer dropped to $23.95 and Amazon sold it for $14.39. Would you then buy it from your FLGS for $23.95, or still get it online anyway?

(-Brad Daeda
Owner, Gamer's Keepe

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Dannyalcatraz
1) I have friends who work for B&N...they pointed out to me that their online prices are (usually) lower than store prices.

S'mon
FLGSes can do this too to an extent...

True, but, for some reason I have yet to fathom, most of the game stores I frequent do not have an appreciable online presence, at least as far as sales go. Of the 3 I use in Dallas, only one (the largest of the 3) even has a web page- and a pretty good one it is, too.

I suspect that the 2 smaller stores may not have enough room in their budget to go online.

The traditional MBA response to this "take out a loan and buy that internet outlet or die," but I also suspect those stores are already highly leveraged or their owners don't have good enough credit to get a loan sufficiently large enough to do a proper website.

 

[Rykion]

This “unethical” practice has proven to be a very successful business model for some of the hated giants of business such as Barnes&Nobles; where you can hang out and read all day long.

Getting shoppers to hang around is one way big stores make more money. The longer they stay, the more likely they are to spend money. The practice is usually combined with refreshments so that people can stay even longer. It is why B & N sells coffee and why some Wal-Marts have McDonalds in them. The shopping mall with food court is the ultimate example of this business model. Hanging around in a business with no intention to purchase is still loitering, and most have rules against this. Many malls are creating new policies to cut down on loitering people that scare away actual customers. It usually takes the form of age restrictions without an adult during certain hours.

 

[Jarrod]

This “unethical” practice has proven to be a very successful business model for some of the hated giants of business such as Barnes&Nobles; where you can hang out and read all day long.

Close, but a little different.

Case 1: Person goes into the store, looks through the stock, unsure whether they'll get something or not. They drink coffee, ask questions, and make a decision.

Case 2: Person goes into the store knowing that they're not going to buy anything from the store; in fact, they're going to spend their money elsewhere.

B&N work off of the first. I, and others, are claiming the second is unethical. The upside of an online store is cheaper prices; the downside is that you can't browse. If you go to another store to browse, KNOWING THAT YOU ARE GOING TO BUY ONLINE (sorry, but that's the key part that keeps getting ignored....), it is unethical.

I go to my FLGS to browse all the time. I look through books and decide not to get them. In fact, I probably spend money fewer than half the times I walk in the door. But I will not go in there and decide whether to get something knowing that I'm going to buy it off Amazon. The ten bucks just isn't worth it.

 

[WhimsyTheFae]

Wow, what a thought provoking thread. It appears that we have some irreconsilable differences instigated by the pricing strategies of the "big boy" online retailers. This seems to be magnified by our culture's quick reward lifestyle, promoted through fast-food, internet purchasing, automatic deposit/withdrawal, etc.

In the short-term (and in some cases the long-term), these services are a boon to the average person and another blessing of advancing technology. Unfortunately, this hurts the FLGS by luring potential customers to the online services.

Is this the fault of the customer? No, being able to get what you are looking for at a cheaper price (and in some cases being able to by additional product) is very helpful. The roleplaying game market is a luxury market. These products are not essential, therefore, saving money will improve a customer's means to provide essential products.

Is this the fault of the online retailer? No, being able to offer a product to the customer at a cost that will increase business and provide a profit is what capitalism is all about. Businesses compete for customers and online, mass-retailers have an advantage in that arena (I am not talking about any illegal practices, as those are obviously against the law for a reason and I'll not accuse all online retailers of anything that I cannot prove - so, I'll remain cautiously suspiscious on that topic).

Is this the fault of the FLGS? No, being able to offer a product to the customer and provide a profit (see above) also forces B&M establishments to offer products at higher prices (due to extra costs). As has been mentioned - timeliness, convenience, service and additional amenities are the weapons that FLGSes have to battle online retailers. Unfortunately, these don't always make up for the "putting bread on the table" savings that online retailers provide. This spiral of death is also partly responsible for declining service, as the FLGS can only afford to hire from the bottom of the barrel (the top of the barrel will work for more money at a high-end retailer).

Is this the fault of the publishers? No, being able to sell large volumes only helps their business. It may be sad to see FLGSes suffer, but as the saying goes, "business is business".

In the end, the online retailer can remain silent and hidden (unless sued for wrongful practices), while offering unbeatable prices. The publisher can continue to provide product to whoever will buy. Meanwhile, the customer and the FLGS wage verbal wars on the ethics of buying practices in a vain attempt to either defend their practices or shame the practices of the other.

This is not a battle that FLGSes can win, they can only hope to tread water (obviously the best of them will be exceptions). FLGSes only have two powerful weapons and one of them is more of an "explodes upon death" sort of weapon. They can provide the best of service and convenience with the hopes of coming out alive. Failing that, they can die off and when the online retailers have no competition and raise their prices and the customers begin to complain that the FLGS is not there for them...

By the way, I do approve of the shaming tactics. Even if some of you are offended or don't give a rat's arse, others may not realize what they are doing and may rethink their practices (if you choose not to, that is your decision). It may help their businesses.

Sorry, not much in the way of helpful advice, just a commentary of what I see...YMMV

 

[two]

{From back in this thread's past:

Quote:
If it's cheaper, that's where I'm going. I'll save a noble attitude for noble causes.

I certainly don't think this is childish. A little harsh perhaps but I pretty much agree. I don't care what the product or service is, money is money. I find it extremely difficult to shell out an extra $10-12 on average for the same book I can get on Amazon or ebay.

I have to agree with the sentiment that if they can't survive or come up with clever ways to attract customers, it's not my moral responsbility to keep them in business.}

This sort of logic only makes sense in a vacuum. We don't live in a vacuum.

If FloorMart can sell you a t-shirt for 5 cents, and everyone else is selling t-shirts for 1$, should you buy the t-shirt from FloorMart?

Vacuum answer: yes, it's cheaper.

Real-world answer: probably not, given the huge disparity in cost, which is only possible when somebody, somewhere, is being vastly underpaid and overworked. And buying from FloorMart supports that kind of abuse.

How does this relate to your local FLGS?

Not in the direct abuse sort of way, obviously. Are there other issues involved? Well, you have to think about it.

That's the trouble.

We simply don't live in a vacuum.

Staying "price is low ergo I buy" simply isn't responsible and sometimes won't be ethical OR moral.

Sadly, the world is complicated; people that CAN thank have a responsibility TO think, and decide these sorts of issues at least for themselves (and hopefully influence others).

In theory, I like "low price best" just fine. Great. Peachy-keen-o.

In real life, I have never been into WalMart and never will go into WalMart, for many obvious and well-documented reasons.

To sum: only using price as your guideline is a complete and utter cop out -- at best.

{for another really basic and really stupid example, buying furniture made from clear-cut Amazon woods (cheap) or furniture made from sustainable wood (more expensive). Low price wins out = support of that sort of harvesting}

 

[WhimsyTheFae]

This sort of logic only makes sense in a vacuum. We don't live in a vacuum.

Nicely put (as well as follow-up explanations). Unfortunately, we also do not live in a black & white world. Many people do think and do not agree that supporting Wal-Mart is bad. Many people do think it is bad, but a necessary bad based on their economic situations. Of course, there are also many people who do not give it a thought beyond the cost.

So, the practice of buying for less, while not always on the best side of the ethical scale, is also not always a result of not thinking or of choosing wrong. A person who wants to support a "bottom line" type of retailer may have completely valid reasons (not including the practice of using the FLGS as a scouting arena).

I do, for the most part, agree with your points.