Petition to have more than 1 Vendor at Nationals

[Jaeger]

Don't get me wrong, I love Troll and Toad and do my fair share of business with them. However, I feel like more business and more competition would be better for the player base.

A few years ago I had the chance to play at Yugioh Nationals. I was missing some cards I needed and expected to pay high for them at the tournament. When I got there though they had over 20 vendors that were competing with each other. There was no price gouging because if one place was to high players had many other places to go. I actually got most of the stuff I needed below market value due to this competition.

I think having this many vendors was a huge success and something P!P should look into.

[Cyrus]

^There is more than one vendor at U. S. National, isn't there?. IIRC there's been multiple every year, although 20+ is a great idea.

[ShuckleLVX]

There has been only one vendor in the past, and general consensus was that it was a disaster (St. Louis).

[JandPDS]

Originally Posted by ShuckleLVX

There has been only one vendor in the past, and general consensus was that it was a disaster (St. Louis).

It was horrible. I wanted to buy one World championship deck (I bought 3 of them before but they all dissapreaed from my area before i could purchase the 4th) I tried to buy it in St Louis at Natoinals but was told they were wonly being sold in blocks of 16 (4 of each deck) That was insane.

[bullados]

Jay, there have been 2 vendors at Nationals since they moved to Indy. Both T&T and Collector's Cache have been in attendance.

I do, however, wish that Indy had a more lenient policy towards convention vendors in that venue. I spoke with a couple of potential vendors who were both interested in staking out ground at US Nationals, and both of them told me the same thing. As a vendor, you needed to ensure that you were pulling in a substantial amount of money even to break even for the weekend because of all the fees associated with setting up a temporary vendor license in the state, not to mention the cost of transportation, staffing, etc, etc. They both said that the cost vastly outweighed the reward for a convention as small as US Nationals.

[Jaeger]

Even with 2 vendors please don't tell me you believe there is no price fixing going on either discussed or not discussed. Many cards will above market value last year because both vendors put them higher.

[ApachePrime]

Originally Posted by Jaeger

Even with 2 vendors please don't tell me you believe there is no price fixing going on either discussed or not discussed. Many cards will above market value last year because both vendors put them higher.

This isn't price fixing. This is a stimulated demand. As the customers are a captive audience, the demand increases tenfold. If there weren't people willing to pay more, then the vendors wouldn't be able to raise the prices.

[bullados]

Originally Posted by Jaeger

Even with 2 vendors please don't tell me you believe there is no price fixing going on either discussed or not discussed. Many cards will above market value last year because both vendors put them higher.

Jay, I understand this. Potential vendors do not see the financial incentive in creating a booth at Pokemon Nationals. They believe that the event is too small and the cost is too high to possibly turn a profit. Especially with two well-known distributor/retailers already on call for the event. As long as that stigma exists, vendors will not be willing to come in and peddle their wares.

[meganium45]

Actually, for people who acted quickly, there were cards well BELOW market value that were snapped up, and rebought by the vendors.

The hottest cards will always garner the highest prices at these events from vendors.

Jaeg, you sure you weren't "buying off the floor" at Yugioh Nationals that year - where a lot of the business goes down??

The cost for a business, even the size of Yeti, to come in and throw down is prohibitive.

Especially when you are dealing with 2 of the best companies out there.

Vince

[homeofmew]

I like T&T don't me wrong, I like dumping all my rotated commons on them for an extra buck. Their prices stay decently fair for the demand too. But yes having more than 1 vendor may be good, the line in St Louis was horrid. But atleast to room was a good size.

As per theft I personally never had anything stolen.
I had someone take my car keys once as a joke - but that was it. (That's not even a joke in my book but I forgave them anyway)
Saying that Kids stealing and saying "they don't know better" sometimes this comment gets under my skin.
Even Adults steal too - some unscrupulous people will do anything for fast money.

[Jaeger]

Vince no I wasn't buy off the floor at all straight from vendors with tables and everything set up.

Apache: What I'm refering to is Yanmega Prime was a $40 card since there was BIN on ebay at $40-$45. Both vendors were selling them at $50 with amble supply had either of them dropped down to $45 they would have sold much better than the other. Than the other would have had to cut down to $42 and so on and so forth. However, there was no reason for them to since the other vendor wasn't going to drop it either.

[psychup2034]

Originally Posted by Jaeger

Apache: What I'm refering to is Yanmega Prime was a $40 card since there was BIN on ebay at $40-$45. Both vendors were selling them at $50 with amble supply had either of them dropped down to $45 they would have sold much better than the other. Than the other would have had to cut down to $42 and so on and so forth. However, there was no reason for them to since the other vendor wasn't going to drop it either.

There are many natural oligopolies in the world. Examples:

• Your electric company
• Your internet/TV/cable company
• Gas stations
• Tablet PC companies
• Your bank
• etc.

It's a little tricky to understand, but economics dictates that under certain conditions, an oligopoly can be the most efficient form of supply. Here are a few reasons:

• Market entry costs (it costs a lot for a vendor to get a spot at nationals)
• Insufficient demand (not enough Pokemon players; if there were 20,000 people at nationals, then more vendors would show up)
• Legal reasons (not applicable here)
• Knowledge-based industry/proprietary information (not applicable here)
• etc.

The $50 that the two vendors charged for Yanmega (Prime) is not necessarily caused by collusion! In fact, the $50 price point may be the profit maximizing amount to charge for Yanmega (Prime)! Think of it this way:

1. Let's say, at $50, 100 Yanmega would be purchased.
2. At $45 (to follow your example), assume that 110 Yanmegas will be purchased.
3. Even though they're selling more Yanmegas at $45, they actually make more revenue by selling at $50, ($5,000 revenue as opposed to $4,950 revenue). (For those who care, I'm making the logical assumption that variable costs are 0.)
4. Selling a higher quantity is generally not the logical thing to do. Maximizing profit is. (Again, for those who care, if variable costs are 0, maximizing profit is the same as maximizing revenue.)

Lastly, the demand is there at Nationals. People had just heard about the Magnezone/Yanmega decks from Canadian Nationals, and everyone wants to play what is perceived to be the "best" deck. The market dictates that when there's a large demand, but a bottleneck in supply, the price will shoot way up. This is true not only for Pokemon cards, but for pretty much everything else in life. Examples from my life:

• It costs $4.75 to buy a hot dog at a baseball game (at Citi Field in New York).
• It costs $5 to get a bottle of Poland Spring inside a night club (in New York again).
• Gas stations in service areas of interstates charge higher prices than those off normal exits.
• Banks charge higher interest for capital during credit crunches.

I'm not claiming that there isn't ever any collusion going on between these companies, but to me, the $50 for Yanmega at last year's Nationals seemed pretty reasonable to me, given the circumstances.

[SLOW DECK]

How about holding vendors responsible for selling stolen merchandise.

The presence of vendors who will pay cash stolen cards DIRECTLY leads to rampant thievery at nationals. Seriously, thieves can steal a deck or binder and have cash in their hands in 5 minutes. My nephew wasn't careful with a deck last year and it was swiped. I only lost about $60 of cards (4 donphans), but there were more tragic thefts, people have entire binders and collections swiped. Generally every Pokemon veteran knows someone who has have stuff stolen at Nats.

Venders do a great job of buying stuff from the real owners, and many folks would be upset if that ended. But I would bet that after the first day, 50% of the vendor purchases could be stolen cards.

I know vendors are legit and I know vendors don't knowingly buy stolen stuff, but they probably should have a great idea of who keeps coming in with "new stuff to sell". Vendors don't want to get into criminal investigation business, there is no money in it. But they do have a responsibilities, and the are criminally liable if they do sell stolen cards.

Things venders could do.
1. Post Signs stating the obvious, they won't buy stolen items, and will cooperate with law enforcement.
2. After 1st day, record name of all sellers of cards to combat theft.

Things pokemon can do.
POST VIDEO CAMERA'S and have a procedure to call law enforcement if a theif is caught. This isn't Pokemon's first nationals, they know what goes on. Seriously, just having a few cameras with tape running or better yet streaming in the open play areas, so theives could be identified would PREVENT from this stuff happening. Most of these knuckleheads though they could get caught, they wouldn't try it in the first place.

[evil psyduck]

Originally Posted by SLOW DECK

How about holding vendors responsible for selling stolen merchandise.

The presence of vendors who will pay cash stolen cards DIRECTLY leads to rampant thievery at nationals. Seriously, I thieves can steal a deck or binder and have cash in their hands in 5 minutes. My nephew wasn't careful with a deck last year and it was swiped. I only lost about $60 of cards (4 donphans), but there were more tragic thefts, people have entire binders and collections swiped.

I would bet that after the first day, 50% of the vendor purchases are stolen cards.

I know vendors don't knowingly buy stolen stuff, but they probably should have a great idea of who keeps coming in with "new stuff to sell".

And just how are they to know if the cards are stolen?

[Jaeger]

Originally Posted by evil psyduck

And just how are they to know if the cards are stolen?

Your basically in the same situation as a Pawn Shop, and have a little common sense. You can't truely know but posting signs, looking for warning signs, and perhaps getting DL numbers for somebody who comes in a lot are all minor things that could help cut down a bit. Even if you catch one person/stop one thing from being stolen isn't that worth it?

---------- Post added 05/11/2012 at 10:14 AM ----------

Originally Posted by psychup2034

There are many natural oligopolies in the world. Examples:

• Your electric company
• Your internet/TV/cable company
• Gas stations
• Tablet PC companies
• Your bank
• etc.

It's a little tricky to understand, but economics dictates that under certain conditions, an oligopoly can be the most efficient form of supply. Here are a few reasons:

• Market entry costs (it costs a lot for a vendor to get a spot at nationals)
• Insufficient demand (not enough Pokemon players; if there were 20,000 people at nationals, then more vendors would show up)
• Legal reasons (not applicable here)
• Knowledge-based industry/proprietary information (not applicable here)
• etc.

The $50 that the two vendors charged for Yanmega (Prime) is not necessarily caused by collusion! In fact, the $50 price point may be the profit maximizing amount to charge for Yanmega (Prime)! Think of it this way:

1. Let's say, at $50, 100 Yanmega would be purchased.
2. At $45 (to follow your example), assume that 110 Yanmegas will be purchased.
3. Even though they're selling more Yanmegas at $45, they actually make more revenue by selling at $50, ($5,000 revenue as opposed to $4,950 revenue). (For those who care, I'm making the logical assumption that variable costs are 0.)
4. Selling a higher quantity is generally not the logical thing to do. Maximizing profit is. (Again, for those who care, if variable costs are 0, maximizing profit is the same as maximizing revenue.)

Lastly, the demand is there at Nationals. People had just heard about the Magnezone/Yanmega decks from Canadian Nationals, and everyone wants to play what is perceived to be the "best" deck. The market dictates that when there's a large demand, but a bottleneck in supply, the price will shoot way up. This is true not only for Pokemon cards, but for pretty much everything else in life. Examples from my life:

• It costs $4.75 to buy a hot dog at a baseball game (at Citi Field in New York).
• It costs $5 to get a bottle of Poland Spring inside a night club (in New York again).
• Gas stations in service areas of interstates charge higher prices than those off normal exits.
• Banks charge higher interest for capital during credit crunches.

I'm not claiming that there isn't ever any collusion going on between these companies, but to me, the $50 for Yanmega at last year's Nationals seemed pretty reasonable to me, given the circumstances.

Oh I fully understand economics and agree with you. Regardless of the 2 situations you must admit that T-T is going to make money. One just leads to a higher net profit and I can't blame a company at all for taking it. My point is still with so few vendors there is nothing encouraging the business to be competitive.

[psychup2034]

Originally Posted by Jaeger

Oh I fully understand economics and agree with you. Regardless of the 2 situations you must admit that T-T is going to make money. One just leads to a higher net profit and I can't blame a company at all for taking it. My point is still with so few vendors there is nothing encouraging the business to be competitive.

But there is an impetus for businesses to be competitive! The desire to maximize profit actually keeps prices down as well!

Think of it this way, if they jack up the prices to high, then they don't maximize their profit either. Take the same example:

• Assume at $45 a piece, they can sell 110 Yanmegas. Revenue = $4,950
• Assume at $50 a piece, they can sell 100 Yanmegas. Revenue = $5,000
• Assume at $55 a piece, they can sell 90 Yanmegas. Revenue = $4,950

In this example, Yanmegas will be $50, because if they sell it for any higher of a price, they make less money. I'm not saying that these vendors make precise market calculations to set a price point for cards, and often times they get the price point wrong. For example, there was a time when people who tested early already knew how good CMT is, but Troll & Toad still sold Celebi (Prime) for $1.49 a piece. (That's when I bought mine.)

Because these vendors don't have perfect information about the Pokemon market, sometimes the prices are set too high, and sometimes the prices are set too low.

When prices are set too low, customers think "Awesome, I got a good deal." When prices are set too high, customers think "Prices are too high! There needs to be more competition! Something needs to be done about it!"

Let's give another example:

• Yanmegas were going for $70 on Saturday at last year's Nationals. The price was perceived as "too high" and people complained.
• Typhlosions were going for $2 on Saturday at least year's Nationals. I didn't hear a single person complain about how unfair it was for the price to be so low.

In saying this, I'm assuming that there's no collusion (and I'm willing to give these two reputable vendors the benefit of the doubt about this unless I see evidence otherwise).

[evil psyduck]

Originally Posted by Jaeger

Your basically in the same situation as a Pawn Shop, and have a little common sense. You can't truely know but posting signs, looking for warning signs, and perhaps getting DL numbers for somebody who comes in a lot are all minor things that could help cut down a bit. Even if you catch one person/stop one thing from being stolen isn't that worth it?

Just getting their DL number does to let you know if something is stolen. Posting signs does nothing to let you know if something is stolen. And what warning signs would tell you something is stolen? Pokemon cards are so common there is no way to tell.

[psychup2034]

Originally Posted by evil psyduck

Just getting their DL number does to let you know if something is stolen. Posting signs does nothing to let you know if something is stolen.

Come on dude... Jaeger is obviously intelligent enough to know that posting signs won't let anyone identify whether something is stolen. It's obvious that Jaeger was talking about using signage as a deterrent to thievery. There's no need to twist his words just to make a point.

"Authorized vehicles are subject to tow at owners' expense" signs deter people from parking in otherwise available spots. Not all people who park somewhere questionable (block a driveway, block a sidewalk, etc.) are caught, but the threat of a fine or tow is enough to deter some people from parking in those spots. Same logic applies to Pokemon cards.

Eyewitnesses and camera evidence works as well. People have been using this technology to catch thieves for decades, and it still works.

This post by SLOW DECK is actually a really good idea, although it would cost a few bucks to implement:
POST VIDEO CAMERAS and have a procedure to call law enforcement if a thief is caught. This isn't Pokemon's first Nationals. They know what goes on. Seriously, just having a few cameras with tape running—or better yet, streaming—in the open play areas so theives could be identified, would PREVENT this stuff from happening. If most of these knuckleheads think they could get caught, they wouldn't try it in the first place.

---------- Post added 05/11/2012 at 12:54 PM ----------

Originally Posted by evil psyduck

And what warning signs would tell you something is stolen? Pokemon cards are so common there is no way to tell.

Profuse sweating, inability to look the store employee in the eye, twitching of fingers, nervous glancing at the doorway, inability for a person to identify exactly what he/she is selling to the store, etc. Keep in mind that stores have a right to refuse sales of they have reason to suspect that the goods being sold were obtained illegally.

[David's Confused Pokedad]

The last year Nationals was held in Columbus this guy and his friend who was a girl stole two boxes of cards from my son. My son had arranged all the cards in order of value. The couple sold the cards to Troll and Toad. We noticed the cards were in the exact order that he had put them in. It was my first time meeting Troll and Toad. They offered to give back my son who was 10 at the time every card . He just wanted the few that were of value. They still said he could have them all. He got the cards he wanted and we left for the car. I then saw the guy who had stolen them. I could not find security. My son did not want to make trouble so we left even though I wanted to get this guy. But I respect Troll and Toad to this day for what they said they would do for us.

[evil psyduck]

Your still not saying how to prove cards are stolen.

[Jaeger]

Evil Psyduck: I'm referring to these polices more as a deterant (preemptive) and in cases stuff is reported stolen it gives the police something to go off of (reactive). It would also encourage the vendors to be a bit more restrictive on what they buy. Stuff might not come with a warning lable "this is stolen." However, if somebody brings in a deck fully sleeved out to sell, another a half hour later, and still another a half hour later...a red light should go off somewhere.

psychup: I can't disagree with you at all....that being said I don't think there is anyway your going to convince me having more vendors is a bad thing.

[psychup2034]

Originally Posted by Jaeger

psychup: I can't disagree with you at all....that being said I don't think there is anyway your going to convince me having more vendors is a bad thing.

Oh, I don't think it's a bad thing for the customers at all. From the customer's perspective, more vendors increases the competition and would theoretically lower the price.

I just don't think it's going to happen given the economic constraints (high entry cost into the market, insufficient demand, etc.), and I'm explaining why that might be.

[Mystery Thing]

Or you could just not leave your stuff laying around. I know that my saying that is starting to slip into the lovely blame-the-victim area, but that doesn't change that if you don't leave your stuff sitting around, it can't get stolen.

[DukeFireBird]

yup.

You came with your stuff. As long as you hold on to your stuff, it remains your stuff. Other people may want your stuff, and if you leave your stuff unattended, your stuff becomes their stuff.

This is not to say to put blame solely on the one who lost their stuff, however you need to be a bit active in not leaving your stuff out for a moment. I have never had a problem with my stuff at a huge event, in fact I remember one year one of my Jirachi plushies decided to jump from my pocket. Luckily someone knew it was mine and found it on the floor and returned it to me.

For the argument of video cameras, that is NOT Pokemon's duty, rather it would be the Indianapolis Convention Center's duty.

Perhaps the best way to do this would be to have the vendors record the basic information from a sell (ID information, amount paid) into their ledgers (I would hope they do this to be able to see if they turned a profit cash wise and not product wise)

[psychup2034]

Originally Posted by DukeFireBird

For the argument of video cameras, that is NOT Pokemon's duty, rather it would be the Indianapolis Convention Center's duty.

I recently saw a neighbor's young kid drop his ice cream cone in the street, so I *gasp* spent my own money and bought him another one from the store. That was NOT my duty.

A couple months ago, I went out drinking with a friend. He has just broken up with his long time girlfriend, and was in a tough spot, so I *gasp* spent my own money and footed the tab for the night. That was NOT my duty.

A local card shop where I used to go play Pokemon offered to house some girl scouts during their cookie sale. Because it was a rainy day, they didn't really sell any cookies, and one of the girls was really upset. The store owner *gasp* spent his own money and bought a lot of boxes of cookies from the girl, making her day.

Every year, there are factual stories of Pokemon players' deck (or even entire collections) getting stolen at Nationals. In an effort to prevent this from happening, the Pokemon Company coordinates with the Indianapolis Convention Center and *gasp* spends some money to get some cameras and better security at the event. That's certainly NOT TPCi's duty.

And of course, people shouldn't do things because it's not their duty, right?