US Retailers “Don’t Want Anime Games”

[Kaze]

Originally Posted by Arbitres

I'd imagine Persona 3 would have gotten Platinum Hit by now?

Nah, Persona 3 for PSP was just released like a month ago, Persona 3 on PS2 might have though!

Originally Posted by Arbitres

Hahaha... Oh Kaze, you are great with words. xD

I'm just saying what I think is going on

Originally Posted by Arbitres

They base on their experience of videogames, and on some cases where the videogame -originated- from. As such, they advocate their videogames much more eagerly then the 'other' videogames.

Exactly, they stand around in the store all day long, thinking they are global gaming experts just because they play some God of War or some Halo at home in the basement. (Where they feel like they just rule the world for capping a flag or killing some half-naked-bull-thing-god)
When they are in the store, of course they will advocate the games they know and play more, than games they haven't even heard of, since they are familiar with those, and they like them.
However, there’s a difference and a limit on how far this should go.
Instead of judging and giving the evil "I'm keeping my eye on you, sick bastard" look to people who buy games like Persona, or Valkyria Chronicles, you should seriously ask questions to people who buy let's say, Hannah Montana games. (Are you SURE you wanna buy THIS?)

Here is where I will use the terms
"Regular Gamer" Which is, somebody who just plays "manly games" (I.e.: Call of Duty, GoW, Gears of War, Counter Strike ect ect)
"Different Gamer" Which is, quite plainly.. the rest
(Just a generalization to make some statements clearer)

Originally Posted by Arbitres

Kaze, I feel for you. stuff like that isn't that bad here, but I'm sure some of them think "What the hell? Why is he wasting money on this shit?" ...I wouldn't be too happy either.

... ...
... ...

They need to give Otakus the job of Store Clerking instead. :| Problem solved

I know, but at the end of the day, sure you bought stuff from the guy who wants to torch you for being a "vampire" in his eyes, err I mean Different Gamer
You don't have to do his job, and you know better than Bob.

I'm 20 and I'm studying Marketing (that's promoting stuff), I'm sure that if they gave me a few years to campaign, I'm sure as hell I would do a better job than whoever or whatever they're doing now, which I can only imagine would be something akin to a monkey with a phone next to him, eating bananas.

Originally Posted by NamuSkull

Kaze, that is one way to look at it. As you say, he scares away certain customers with his own "uber manly" opinion. Rather than to comment on what their tastes are, just sell the game and be over it. Forcing opinions on others on what's a good game is a no-no. Unless, the customer needs a personal opinion from you, then it's somewhat okay.

Yeah, it's just a clear case of narrow minded-ness, some clerks are just not open enough to explore new stuff, and just sticking to what they know.
I'm sure that this entire "crisis" is not caused by the people that buy the games, but by the poor way they try to sell them.
"Hey Cletus, look at this game, it has a gun, and you can shoot people with it, cool huh"

What I'd do is hang a scoreboard in the shop with a list of "games of the week"

Let's say a board of top 8 games.
And even if Bob is standing there with a finger in his nose and his pants half down his ankles looking manly, the board is hanging there.
Who gets to pick the top 8? Well I sure as hell wouldn't let Bob take care of it, he can go get me some coffee and take out some trash while I do the real work.
Seriously now, you could just check the editors choice on Gamespot or any other game reviewing site, as they all have different opinions and put that on the board.

And we all know, different opinions = much, much better, Right Bob?

Originally Posted by Hooves

But really, hiring someone that question's people for what game they are going to buy is really going to make you lose business.

I know, what ever happened to "Customer is king"?
Guess those were the Dark Ages huh, so now we have Cave trolls swinging manly clubs at us for wanting quality games.

[synaesthetic]

Game retailers don't want to hire gamers. I applied for a job at GameStop once (shut up, I was unemployed and I'm still underemployed, I'm desperate for more cash) and I actually lost the job at the interview because I knew too much about gaming (and possibly because I'm not a guy; I've never seen a woman work for any game retailer).

They want someone who doesn't know shit and will push all their titles--especially the bad ones that don't move on their own. A gamer, though, would push people away from shitty games.

[Kaze]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

Game retailers don't want to hire gamers. I applied for a job at GameStop once (shut up, I was unemployed and I'm still underemployed, I'm desperate for more cash) and I actually lost the job at the interview because I knew too much about gaming (and possibly because I'm not a guy; I've never seen a woman work for any game retailer).

They want someone who doesn't know shit and will push all their titles--especially the bad ones that don't move on their own. A gamer, though, would push people away from shitty games.

This is a general misconception which is very bad for store profits, the best thing they could do, is hire people who know their stuff.

(Dude, working at Gamestop is awesome! Sucks that they turned you down : /)

Seriously? trust me, I would set a 5-10% increase in profits if a woman was behind the counter who knows their stuff about games, where lots of guys pass through.
(Yes I know it's discriminating, but it's effective and works!)

While this is also true that they just want brainless zombies pushing all their games, it's very bad in the long run.
In all my readings I have always come to the conclusion which is
Create a bond with the customer, a long term bond.

If 1 guy buys 1 game and never comes back, sure thats quick cash
If 1 guy buys 1 game and after a while buys another, and another ect, that's true profit.

[Mr. DJ]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

Game retailers don't want to hire gamers. I applied for a job at GameStop once (shut up, I was unemployed and I'm still underemployed, I'm desperate for more cash) and I actually lost the job at the interview because I knew too much about gaming (and possibly because I'm not a guy; I've never seen a woman work for any game retailer).

They want someone who doesn't know shit and will push all their titles--especially the bad ones that don't move on their own. A gamer, though, would push people away from shitty games.

My friend kinda had the same raw deal, only gender roles were reversed, they hired a female who knew jack squat about games. Had something to do with people thinking they were discriminatory towards female workers since they never had any.

[synaesthetic]

Originally Posted by Kaze

Seriously? trust me, I would set a 5-10% increase in profits if a woman was behind the counter who knows their stuff about games, where lots of guys pass through.
(Yes I know it's discriminating, but it's effective and works!)

My boobs are only big enough to set a 2-5% increase in profits.

[Kaze]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

My boobs are only big enough to set a 2-5% increase in profits.

Nonsense!
It's not the boobs I'm talking about, it's just the general atmosphere, women radiate a much calmer and pleasant atmosphere than men, especially when it comes to games.

Picture yourself, you want to buy a game, you've either got Bob on steroids going "1st!!11 bitches!!!1" or a woman, who doesn't go around pumping muscles in your face, who'd you pick?

[technomo12]

Originally Posted by Kaze

Nonsense!
It's not the boobs I'm talking about, it's just the general atmosphere, women radiate a much calmer and pleasant atmosphere than men, especially when it comes to games.

Picture yourself, you want to buy a game, you've either got Bob on steroids going "1st!!11 bitches!!!1" or a woman, who doesn't go around pumping muscles in your face, who'd you pick?

id go with a woman

anyway

here in the PH

we have also a game stare called datablitz....thoguh in partner with Gamestop

it has 4 clerks

3 woman and 1 man

all of them are gamers

and its fun to chat with em

also they have jap games for PC psp Ps3

wel the translated ones ofcourse hhehehe

[-Kh-]

Originally Posted by Kaze

Now Bob has to use the corn in his brain and starts thinking.
"Wait a sec, t-this has an age limit! It's Japanese! It's mature! Must be some shit H-game, better ask him for his age!"

I'm not defending Bob, but if you are unlucky enough to still look under 17 at your age (it happened to me even when I was around 24), so I just think that he was doing his job of making sure you weren't underage. You know, those ESRB ratings (and those from other regions) are there to be used, but not many people actually care about them and just want to sell the product.

But I do agree that Bob was just some twat.



And on-topic:

While not trying to fix the retail situation in the US, publishers wanting to sell their games there should look for alternative ways without having to use retail space, that would actually be cheaper for them. So what can they do? Get better product placement on online shops and make their PSP games available to download on PSN, same for those PS3 and 360 games. Download sales aren't nearly as good as boxed retail, but they will save money, and with just the right marketing, not necessarily something big, but just the way that Atlus does it, and they can have enough sales to cover the localization, marketing and increase consumer awareness on how and where to get their 'anime' games.

[JagdPanther]

Originally Posted by MaiNoKen

I try to not to worry too much what other say about my hobbies - in the end entertainment that is pleasing myself is good. I played the US released VC and imported Persona, and I love it!

As long as those gems keep making it through the US retailer nets, I'll be somewhat happy. It's a lot better than if those games never made it here at all. VC has become one of my favorite games of my gaming career.

Would it be better if more games made it over here? Sure. But I'm satisfied with what we do get at the least.

Off Topic:


High-5 to all Penn Stater from a feloow Penn State alumni. I actually live in Tallahassee; with Bobby Bowden retired, Joe Pa is the king.

Small world! I used to live in Tallahassee, actually, over in Killearn Estates, kinda northeast of city center. Out near the Capital Circle Fly-over-to-nowhere.

I'm a PSU alum as of '09 and I'm back getting my JD and MBA.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Kaze

This is a general misconception which is very bad for store profits, the best thing they could do, is hire people who know their stuff.

(Dude, working at Gamestop is awesome! Sucks that they turned you down : /)

Seriously? trust me, I would set a 5-10% increase in profits if a woman was behind the counter who knows their stuff about games, where lots of guys pass through.
(Yes I know it's discriminating, but it's effective and works!)

While this is also true that they just want brainless zombies pushing all their games, it's very bad in the long run.
In all my readings I have always come to the conclusion which is
Create a bond with the customer, a long term bond.

Funny thing is that, I study Management with a submodule of marketing. All the idealistic principles are taught to us, however the modules of Accountancy and Microeconomics simply clash with them.

The idea of marketing is to hire people who can sell things rather than people who know things. As much as a bad idea of hiring know-its is shown during my tenure as a salesperson at a computer fair, where those who knew nothing about computers outsell those who know more.

Both you and synth are right in certain ways, you regarding the customer-bond building and synth regarding the title-pusher hiring. However I guess synth does actually made a very practical point since most gamers are casual rather than hardcore, they don't really care about the games they buy. So,

If 1 guy buys 1 game and never comes back, sure thats quick cash

adheres to the principles of profit protection and prudent use of the two major resources of time and money, while

If 1 guy buys 1 game and after a while buys another, and another ect, that's true profit.

doesn't.

Customer bond building usually works in limited size markets, like within macroeconomical structure where MNCs liase with big suppliers within a small market. Title pushing works better in the micro case where the consumer base is large enough to allow a numbers game to be played.

[Hooves]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Funny thing is that, I study Management with a submodule of marketing. All the idealistic principles are taught to us, however the modules of Accountancy and Microeconomics simply clash with them.

The idea of marketing is to hire people who can sell things rather than people who know things. As much as a bad idea of hiring know-its is shown during my tenure as a salesperson at a computer fair, where those who knew nothing about computers outsell those who know more.

This is true to the fact that people are simply throwing their money away, and the person behind the counter will just say something like "Sure, thing" But there is a side-effect to this as well, if the person doesn't exactly know the specifics about the thing he/she is buying, and the person behind the counter doesn't know anything as well, it will eventually sometimes lead to the customer coming back all pissed at spending the money without the full details. (Which is a sorta useless argument anyway due to the simple fact that you should have known the details of what you were buying) But it will just get aggravating getting so much angry customers.

Whereas a person who is working that knows the specific details about the stuff, will give them heads-up and tips on the thing they are buying, simply leading to non-pissed off customers. The customer will also tend to trust the store more then any other store if they get heads-up and tips from that specific store, leading to happy daily customers. Also the thing about creating a bond with the customer is actually helpful in some terms.

But that is just my logic of things

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Hooves

This is true to the fact that people are simply throwing their money away, and the person behind the counter will just say something like "Sure, thing" But there is a side-effect to this as well, if the person doesn't exactly know the specifics about the thing he/she is buying, and the person behind the counter doesn't know anything as well, it will eventually sometimes lead to the customer coming back all pissed at spending the money without the full details. (Which is a sorta useless argument anyway due to the simple fact that you should have known the details of what you were buying) But it will just get aggravating getting so much angry customers.

Whereas a person who is working that knows the specific details about the stuff, will give them heads-up and tips on the thing they are buying, simply leading to non-pissed of customers. The customer will also tend to trust the store more then any other store if they get heads-up and tips from that specific store, leading to happy daily customers.

But that is just my logic of things

One simple explanation : since both the customer and the salespersons are humans, they are stupid. It is like a chicken agreeing to whatever a duck says.

This follows up to the idiom of "birds of the same feather flock together.", thus a harmonious society of idiots, with no questions asked as long as the money flows upwards to the malovalent money grubbers following the maxim of "large revenue - small expenditure = large profit for myself".

Then again, it simply showed that despite all the simple arithmetic we learn in preschool, we never applied it to the adult life. We simply don't care about anything we bought as long as we are happy.

Finally, you forgot the last bit I wrote when you replied with your second paragraph :

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Customer bond building usually works in limited size markets, like within macroeconomical structure where MNCs liase with big suppliers within a small market. Title pushing works better in the micro case where the consumer base is large enough to allow a numbers game to be played.

[Hooves]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

One simple explanation : since both the customer and the salespersons are humans, they are stupid. It is like a chicken agreeing to whatever a duck says.

This follows up to the idiom of "birds of the same feather flock together.", thus a harmonious society of idiots, with no questions asked as long as the money flows upwards to the malovalent money grubbers following the maxim of "large revenue - small expenditure = large profit for myself".

Then again, it simply showed that despite all the simple arithmetic we learn in preschool, we never applied it to the adult life. We simply don't care about anything we bought as long as we are happy.

A simple explanation indeed, I was just merely typing mindless jibber that my brain just came up with, so I really did not know what to expect as a reply when I typed it out.

[Kaze]

Originally Posted by -Kh-

I'm not defending Bob, but if you are unlucky enough to still look under 17 at your age (it happened to me even when I was around 24), so I just think that he was doing his job of making sure you weren't underage. You know, those ESRB ratings (and those from other regions) are there to be used, but not many people actually care about them and just want to sell the product.

But I do agree that Bob was just some twat.

You do bring up a valid point, but seeing as I am 1.95 metres / (6.3 feet for Americans), and do not look like a 17 year old punk, I was thinking he'd have more brains than that.
Yes indeed, I fully support the use of the ESRB rating system, they should be used at all times.

Originally Posted by -Kh-

While not trying to fix the retail situation in the US, publishers wanting to sell their games there should look for alternative ways without having to use retail space, that would actually be cheaper for them. So what can they do? Get better product placement on online shops and make their PSP games available to download on PSN, same for those PS3 and 360 games. Download sales aren't nearly as good as boxed retail, but they will save money, and with just the right marketing, not necessarily something big, but just the way that Atlus does it, and they can have enough sales to cover the localization, marketing and increase consumer awareness on how and where to get their 'anime' games.

It's the shortest way to cash, which is why they don't really bother putting much effort in fixing the situation.
I completely agree with this, using the PSN is the fastest and cheapest way to get across, it cuts away the retailers completely, going for direct selling to the customer.

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Funny thing is that, I study Management with a submodule of marketing. All the idealistic principles are taught to us, however the modules of Accountancy and Microeconomics simply clash with them.

You do know that Management =/= Marketing right?
My job is getting people to know about a product, that's all,
When they buy said product from the store, thats great! But has nothing to do with marketing, as that is the task of the Sales people, my job picks up again with creating the intent of making the customer stay with the store they bought it from. Wheras Management is running the store (If that's the management you're studying, I could be mistaken ofc, as that's the simple version of the Management they give at my college)
I would say I know as much about management as much as you know about marketing, as I get a submodule of management too.

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

The idea of marketing is to hire people who can sell things rather than people who know things. As much as a bad idea of hiring know-its is shown during my tenure as a salesperson at a computer fair, where those who knew nothing about computers outsell those who know more.

No, you're completely wrong,
Hiring people who can sell, is the Sales Departement, not the Marketing Departement, they are complete opposites.
In my field, they want people who know their stuff, because the regular consumer doesn't normally know the stuff that the Marketing people know.

Marketing is getting a message across, that's all.
Marketing people don't even have to be a part of the company that wants said message to get across, we just get hired to put up a campaign.

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Both you and synth are right in certain ways, you regarding the customer-bond building and synth regarding the title-pusher hiring. However I guess synth does actually made a very practical point since most gamers are casual rather than hardcore, they don't really care about the games they buy.

I agree, I might have overlooked the possibility of just regular people buying a game now and then.
However, looking from the store --> customer viewpoint, you do really want to make sure he stays satisfied, if you don't, get ready to close up shop.

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Customer bond building usually works in limited size markets, like within macroeconomical structure where MNCs liase with big suppliers within a small market. Title pushing works better in the micro case where the consumer base is large enough to allow a numbers game to be played.

While this is true, it's also flawed.
Take Apple for example, why does Apple look so much more hip and trendy than Microsoft? Because they try to bond with the people, show them that they are a heartbeat away.
Does that make Apple the best product in the world?
Not by a long shot
It's a matter of choice on how to approach your market.

Originally Posted by Hooves

This is true to the fact that people are simply throwing their money away, and the person behind the counter will just say something like "Sure, thing" But there is a side-effect to this as well, if the person doesn't exactly know the specifics about the thing he/she is buying, and the person behind the counter doesn't know anything as well, it will eventually sometimes lead to the customer coming back all pissed at spending the money without the full details. (Which is a sorta useless argument anyway due to the simple fact that you should have known the details of what you were buying) But it will just get aggravating getting so much angry customers.

Exactly, this is what the customer is thinking, this is also the other half of the Story of Bob.

Bob has an influence in 2 ways
1: He scares the consumer away (explained on page 2)
2: He doesn't give a shit what you buy and just sells it to you, where you try out the game and get let down, and stop the purchace of more games like it.

Originally Posted by Hooves

Whereas a person who is working that knows the specific details about the stuff, will give them heads-up and tips on the thing they are buying, simply leading to non-pissed off customers. The customer will also tend to trust the store more then any other store if they get heads-up and tips from that specific store, leading to happy daily customers. Also the thing about creating a bond with the customer is actually helpful in some terms.

But that is just my logic of things

This is what customers are looking for, when you buy something, you expect the person that is selling it, to know what they are talking about.

An example, if you go buy a chainsaw at homedepot or w/e, and the guy trying to sell it to you is bandaged all over the place from injuries of said chainsaw, you still going to buy it?

The point is, if you get 1 customer happy, he tells his friends, who then come to your store, if they leave happy, their friends will also stop by.

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

One simple explanation : since both the customer and the salespersons are humans, they are stupid. It is like a chicken agreeing to whatever a duck says.

While this may be true if you believe it.
I tend to see it this way.
One is stupider than the other.
The customer is in most cases stupider than the person who is selling it (Otherwise he wouldn't sell stuff)
It would be more like a chicken agreeing to what a wolf says.

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

This follows up to the idiom of "birds of the same feather flock together.", thus a harmonious society of idiots, with no questions asked as long as the money flows upwards to the malovalent money grubbers following the maxim of "large revenue - small expenditure = large profit for myself".

That's management for you, totally diffrent from a Marketing standpoint
Marketing is getting a message across, not getting money across.
Don't believe me?
Red Cross, Greenpeace, Unicef, I bet they all want money for themselves
They use emotional marketing, to get a strong message across, and that message would be "help others"

Originally Posted by Hooves

A simple explanation indeed, I was just merely typing mindless jibber that my brain just came up with, so I really did not know what to expect as a reply when I typed it out.

It was not mindless jibber, it was a valid point.



PS: Let's stay on topic this time, no use in debating Product strategies, this thread is about "Anime games being sold in the US", if you want to continue this, I suggest we take it to PM's

[technomo12]

Originally Posted by Kaze

You do bring up a valid point, but seeing as I am 1.95 metres / (6.3 feet for Americans), and do not look like a 17 year old punk, I was thinking he'd have more brains than that.
Yes indeed, I fully support the use of the ESRB rating system, they should be used at all times.





It's the shortest way to cash, which is why they don't really bother putting much effort in fixing the situation.
I completely agree with this, using the PSN is the fastest and cheapest way to get across, it cuts away the retailers completely, going for direct selling to the customer.




You do know that Management =/= Marketing right?
My job is getting people to know about a product, that's all,
When they buy said product from the store, thats great! But has nothing to do with marketing, as that is the task of the Sales people, my job picks up again with creating the intent of making the customer stay with the store they bought it from. Wheras Management is running the store (If that's the management you're studying, I could be mistaken ofc, as that's the simple version of the Management they give at my college)
I would say I know as much about management as much as you know about marketing, as I get a submodule of management too.



No, you're completely wrong,
Hiring people who can sell, is the Sales Departement, not the Marketing Departement, they are complete opposites.
In my field, they want people who know their stuff, because the regular consumer doesn't normally know the stuff that the Marketing people know.

Marketing is getting a message across, that's all.
Marketing people don't even have to be a part of the company that wants said message to get across, we just get hired to put up a campaign.



I agree, I might have overlooked the possibility of just regular people buying a game now and then.
However, looking from the store --> customer viewpoint, you do really want to make sure he stays satisfied, if you don't, get ready to close up shop.




While this is true, it's also flawed.
Take Apple for example, why does Apple look so much more hip and trendy than Microsoft? Because they try to bond with the people, show them that they are a heartbeat away.
Does that make Apple the best product in the world?
Not by a long shot
It's a matter of choice on how to approach your market.



Exactly, this is what the customer is thinking, this is also the other half of the Story of Bob.

Bob has an influence in 2 ways
1: He scares the consumer away (explained on page 2)
2: He doesn't give a shit what you buy and just sells it to you, where you try out the game and get let down, and stop the purchace of more games like it.



This is what customers are looking for, when you buy something, you expect the person that is selling it, to know what they are talking about.

An example, if you go buy a chainsaw at homedepot or w/e, and the guy trying to sell it to you is bandaged all over the place from injuries of said chainsaw, you still going to buy it?

The point is, if you get 1 customer happy, he tells his friends, who then come to your store, if they leave happy, their friends will also stop by.




While this may be true if you believe it.
I tend to see it this way.
One is stupider than the other.
The customer is in most cases stupider than the person who is selling it (Otherwise he wouldn't sell stuff)
It would be more like a chicken agreeing to what a wolf says.



That's management for you, totally diffrent from a Marketing standpoint
Marketing is getting a message across, not getting money across.
Don't believe me?
Red Cross, Greenpeace, Unicef, I bet they all want money for themselves
They use emotional marketing, to get a strong message across, and that message would be "help others"




It was not mindless jibber, it was a valid point.



PS: Let's stay on topic this time, no use in debating Product strategies, this thread is about "Anime games being sold in the US", if you want to continue this, I suggest we take it to PM's

well we cant put it into perspective that what we are talking about is why US hate anime based games

also wow what a discussion

oh yeah im BS in computer engineering by the way hehehe

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Kaze

You do know that Management =/= Marketing right?
My job is getting people to know about a product, that's all,
When they buy said product from the store, thats great! But has nothing to do with marketing, as that is the task of the Sales people, my job picks up again with creating the intent of making the customer stay with the store they bought it from. Wheras Management is running the store (If that's the management you're studying, I could be mistaken ofc, as that's the simple version of the Management they give at my college)
I would say I know as much about management as much as you know about marketing, as I get a submodule of management too.

The concept of management is about two the two Ps, "Prudence" and "Protection". In layman's terms, it means to spend as little as you can when running a company, and make sure the entire structure doesn't collapse.

The problem is with the "Protection" part, since the shareholders want their dividents. The root are the major ones, they elect the chairperson who funnels the most money to them, and drops all the problems of "staff and customer" to him. So primarily, the chairperson main objective is to pay the shareholders, not to ensure their customers get the quality goods or that their staff gets paid well.

With the advent of communication through the Internet, it allows a greater outreach across the world when selling products, thus it expands the market size. Since the company size is small as to compete with foreign titles and competitors, combined with the entertainment hungry casual gaming masses, it has to increase the supply to meet the demand. And supply as not in the number of copies, but the number of titles.

So the computer game, as an engaging form of entertainment as compared to TV and music, mutates from an ordinary good to a Giffen good. Hence the reason why people still buy SC2 at the price of $109.

And with the revenue generated, the workers have to be paid, and the more workers and equipment the company used, the less is going to be paid to the shareholders. This results in some legal wrangling and twisting, through the terms and conditions signed by employee and customer contracts, the shareholders and chairperson usually wins.

This is certainly Kaspersky, but the horribly mutilated capitalism in favour of self-gain has destroyed chairperson/shareholder-employer-employee-customer relations. The reason it happens over and over again is due to the customer/consumer seeing computer gaming as a "need" rather than a "want", and combined with the attitude of not wanting to do research, recreates the scenario over and over again.

And it ends up that the only winner is the shareholder. He/she gets his/her money due from the investment while the chairperson has to stand in for the shit.

No, you're completely wrong,
Hiring people who can sell, is the Sales Departement, not the Marketing Departement, they are complete opposites.
In my field, they want people who know their stuff, because the regular consumer doesn't normally know the stuff that the Marketing people know.

Marketing is getting a message across, that's all.
Marketing people don't even have to be a part of the company that wants said message to get across, we just get hired to put up a campaign.

I thought Marketing is a subdept under Sales. What is the use of letting someone know of a product if he/she doesn't want to buy it?

Could be wrong though, since I haven't exactly seen a company where Sales and Marketing are mutually exclusive departments. And I haven't seen the real structure of many companies.

I agree, I might have overlooked the possibility of just regular people buying a game now and then.
However, looking from the store --> customer viewpoint, you do really want to make sure he stays satisfied, if you don't, get ready to close up shop.

Depends on whether the shop is part of a chain or not. If it is so, the customer can just "BAFO" (Buy And F*** Off). If it is a sole proprietary, it better maintain their smiles.

If it is a chain, we apply regional based macroeconomic principles. If it is a standalone, we apply microeconomic principles.

The chain usually has the "sack the employee and blame him for everything" card they can play. And their business expansion tactics always involve buying up standalone stores, so somehow it leads to becoming an oligopoly in game distribution.

Though most developers don't like that, they have to suck their thumbs as the distributors control their income. Which dev doesn't want to spend extra time polishing and going through their games? Most of these guys chose to stay in their jobs because game programming is fun to them.

Thank goodness for electronic distribution though. No more dumbasses marking up prices to pay their shareholders.

While this is true, it's also flawed.
Take Apple for example, why does Apple look so much more hip and trendy than Microsoft? Because they try to bond with the people, show them that they are a heartbeat away.
Does that make Apple the best product in the world?
Not by a long shot
It's a matter of choice on how to approach your market.

I think this is more of viral and brainwashing marketing. Apple products have this streak of being mediocre in usefulness. I used an Macbook before and I still don't get how much more is it easier to use Photoshop on it with my MSI Eclipse mounted with an i7 processor, and how is one worth the extra $400.

Apple products tend to sell by sleeper hitting. That is their way of bonding with customers.

I generally agree with the rest of the stuff you post though. Other than the postscript :

PS: Let's stay on topic this time, no use in debating Product strategies, this thread is about "Anime games being sold in the US", if you want to continue this, I suggest we take it to PM's

We are still on topic. Not many posters here use applied knowledge anyway, so it sounds OT.

[technomo12]

yeah we are pretty much in topic since we are talking about the reason why US hate anime based games

also about the concept of costumer bonding i think japan has it more on a next level since the think of long term services rather than a quick cash

[Kaze]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

The concept of management is about two the two Ps, "Prudence" and "Protection". In layman's terms, it means to spend as little as you can when running a company, and make sure the entire structure doesn't collapse.

That's our difference, you only use 2 P's.

I use 4 P's:

-Product
-Price
-Promotion
-Place

+ an EXTRA P

Personnel

In common tongue:
I study a Product (Everything attached to it, from what it does to what it looks like).
I see the Price it will cost to get said product, and study the price the other guys are setting up for the same product.
I do the Promotion, which is every activity that is meant to communicate with the target market and improve the will to buy from consumers.
I make sure it's in the right Place, and with this I mean, who is the target? the retailers? the consumers? what's the place for this product to sell well.

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

The problem is with the "Protection" part, since the shareholders want their dividents. The root are the major ones, they elect the chairperson who funnels the most money to them, and drops all the problems of "staff and customer" to him. So primarily, the chairperson main objective is to pay the shareholders, not to ensure their customers get the quality goods or that their staff gets paid well.

You've got different styles of management, not every company in the world is like this, but it's true most major ones are.

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

With the advent of communication through the Internet, it allows a greater outreach across the world when selling products, thus it expands the market size. Since the company size is small as to compete with foreign titles and competitors, combined with the entertainment hungry casual gaming masses, it has to increase the supply to meet the demand. And supply as not in the number of copies, but the number of titles.

Web 2.0, ever heard of it? I know you should have.
It means the consumer is communicating with the producer directly, through the internet.
A solid example of Web 2.0 would be Facebook, every major company wants it's producs on Facebook, so people can spread it around much, much faster, woldwide, for free.

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

So the computer game, as an engaging form of entertainment as compared to TV and music, mutates from an ordinary good to a Giffen good. Hence the reason why people still buy SC2 at the price of $109.

Exactly, however, they are using skimming priced strategy, they launch SC2 for 109$,
the Pioneers pre-order it,
the Early Majority buys it in the shop,
and the Late Majority buys it in the shop too, but for only 50$.
And lastly, the Laggards buy it 2 years later for 20$

In simple terms,
Launch Starcraft 2: 109$
For a few weeks it will remain 109$,
after that they will reduce the price, to maximize sales, they would reduce the price to let's say, 70$,
so people who would still like the game, but not cash out 109$ to get it, would still buy it.
After that, they keep reducing the price, to lure in more people.

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

And with the revenue generated, the workers have to be paid, and the more workers and equipment the company used, the less is going to be paid to the shareholders. This results in some legal wrangling and twisting, through the terms and conditions signed by employee and customer contracts, the shareholders and chairperson usually wins.

This is running a company 1-o-1, the basics of management
Don't assume I'm some hick living under a rock, I know what you're talking about.
The only reason I'm not swinging around economical terms like yourself, is because I am thinking about the people who read this and don't get a clue what's going on.

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

And it ends up that the only winner is the shareholder. He/she gets his/her money due from the investment while the chairperson has to stand in for the shit.

Not always, take BP for example, the chairperson got nailed and so did the shareholders, they can forget any good PR for the next 20 years.

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

I thought Marketing is a subdept under Sales. What is the use of letting someone know of a product if he/she doesn't want to buy it?

No, we're not.
It's a general misconception that Marketing = Sales.
We hate the sales departement, and they hate us.
We are 2 different departements, not the same, and we don't answer to eachother either.

Marketing = Consumer / company PR directed
Sales = Profit directed

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Could be wrong though, since I haven't exactly seen a company where Sales and Marketing are mutually exclusive departments. And I haven't seen the real structure of many companies.

I have been working with a few companies for a while now, nothing major though, as I'm still in College, but in every single company, the marketing departement was split from the sales departement.
You cannot mix them.
Again, we don't answer to them, they don't answer to us.
They are 2 diffrent educations, though they might look alike, they are far from being the same.

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Depends on whether the shop is part of a chain or not. If it is so, the customer can just "BAFO" (Buy And F*** Off). If it is a sole proprietary, it better maintain their smiles.

If it is a chain, we apply regional based macroeconomic principles. If it is a standalone, we apply microeconomic principles.

The chain usually has the "sack the employee and blame him for everything" card they can play. And their business expansion tactics always involve buying up standalone stores, so somehow it leads to becoming an oligopoly in game distribution.

Exactly, I completely agree with you on this one,
however, in a small local gaming store around the corner, it would be much, much better if you knew the guy that was working there, would want what's best for you, by getting to know you.

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Though most developers don't like that, they have to suck their thumbs as the distributors control their income. Which dev doesn't want to spend extra time polishing and going through their games? Most of these guys chose to stay in their jobs because game programming is fun to them.

Yes, but by using the PSN or Steam in some cases, cuts out the need for physical distributors, giving them back a part of their power.

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Thank goodness for electronic distribution though. No more dumbasses marking up prices to pay their shareholders.

Exactly, which is a reason why in the future, you will see this much more often.
Take a look at the new PSP Go!
It doesn't use any UMD's anymore, and can only play games it has to download.

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

I think this is more of viral and brainwashing marketing. Apple products have this streak of being mediocre in usefulness. I used an Macbook before and I still don't get how much more is it easier to use Photoshop on it with my MSI Eclipse mounted with an i7 processor, and how is one worth the extra $400.

Apple products tend to sell by sleeper hitting. That is their way of bonding with customers.

Yeah, they are just using Steve Jobs as a posterboy, when he goes, Apple goes. Like the time he was gone, shares in Apple plummeted, which is why they brought him back.

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

I generally agree with the rest of the stuff you post though. Other than the postscript :

It's a good discussion, and I'm glad I finally met somebody who knows his economics, I'd use a lot more marketing terms, but:
A: I learn my courses in a different language (Have to wait till I get out of this shithole and go back to Canada to learn some proper English Marketing)
B: general readability, so others can better understand what we are talking about.

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

We are still on topic. Not many posters here use applied knowledge anyway, so it sounds OT.

I don't really know if this was an insult or a compliment, however I am a fan of letting everybody in on a discussion, without scaring them away with walls of text and hard terms.

PS: My spelling probably plummeted with my last few posts, I just don't have the time to spell check everything with such huge posts.

[technomo12]

Originally Posted by Kaze

That's our difference, you only use 2 P's.

I use 4 P's:

-Product
-Price
-Promotion
-Place

+ an EXTRA P

Personnel

In common tongue:
I study a Product (Everything attached to it, from what it does to what it looks like).
I see the Price it will cost to get said product, and study the price the other guys are setting up for the same product.
I do the Promotion, which is every activity that is meant to communicate with the target market and improve the will to buy from consumers.
I make sure it's in the right Place, and with this I mean, who is the target? the retailers? the consumers? what's the place for this product to sell well.





You've got different styles of management, not every company in the world is like this, but it's true most major ones are.



Web 2.0, ever heard of it? I know you should have.
It means the consumer is communicating with the producer directly, through the internet.
A solid example of Web 2.0 would be Facebook, every major company wants it's producs on Facebook, so people can spread it around much, much faster, woldwide, for free.



Exactly, however, they are using skimming priced strategy, they launch SC2 for 109$,
the Pioneers pre-order it,
the Early Majority buys it in the shop,
and the Late Majority buys it in the shop too, but for only 50$.
And lastly, the Laggards buy it 2 years later for 20$

In simple terms,
Launch Starcraft 2: 109$
For a few weeks it will remain 109$,
after that they will reduce the price, to maximize sales, they would reduce the price to let's say, 70$,
so people who would still like the game, but not cash out 109$ to get it, would still buy it.
After that, they keep reducing the price, to lure in more people.




This is running a company 1-o-1, the basics of management
Don't assume I'm some hick living under a rock, I know what you're talking about.
The only reason I'm not swinging around economical terms like yourself, is because I am thinking about the people who read this and don't get a clue what's going on.



Not always, take BP for example, the chairperson got nailed and so did the shareholders, they can forget any good PR for the next 20 years.




No, we're not.
It's a general misconception that Marketing = Sales.
We hate the sales departement, and they hate us.
We are 2 different departements, not the same, and we don't answer to eachother either.

Marketing = Consumer / company PR directed
Sales = Profit directed



I have been working with a few companies for a while now, nothing major though, as I'm still in College, but in every single company, the marketing departement was split from the sales departement.
You cannot mix them.
Again, we don't answer to them, they don't answer to us.
They are 2 diffrent educations, though they might look alike, they are far from being the same.








Exactly, I completely agree with you on this one,
however, in a small local gaming store around the corner, it would be much, much better if you knew the guy that was working there, would want what's best for you, by getting to know you.




Yes, but by using the PSN or Steam in some cases, cuts out the need for physical distributors, giving them back a part of their power.





Exactly, which is a reason why in the future, you will see this much more often.
Take a look at the new PSP Go!
It doesn't use any UMD's anymore, and can only play games it has to download.







Yeah, they are just using Steve Jobs as a posterboy, when he goes, Apple goes. Like the time he was gone, shares in Apple plummeted, which is why they brought him back.



It's a good discussion, and I'm glad I finally met somebody who knows his economics, I'd use a lot more marketing terms, but:
A: I learn my courses in a different language (Have to wait till I get out of this shithole and go back to Canada to learn some proper English Marketing)
B: general readability, so others can better understand what we are talking about.




I don't really know if this was an insult or a compliment, however I am a fan of letting everybody in on a discussion, without scaring them away with walls of text and hard terms.

PS: My spelling probably plummeted with my last few posts, I just don't have the time to spell check everything with such huge posts.

dude saint is not insulting you

rather he is complimenting you

as for the hard wall of text

only lazy people don't read long text

i find reading your discussion very very informative and fun >_<

[Hooves]

Exactly, however, they are using skimming priced strategy, they launch SC2 for 109$,
the Pioneers pre-order it,
the Early Majority buys it in the shop,
and the Late Majority buys it in the shop too, but for only 50$.
And lastly, the Laggards buy it 2 years later for 20$

In simple terms,
Launch Starcraft 2: 109$
For a few weeks it will remain 109$,
after that they will reduce the price, to maximize sales, they would reduce the price to let's say, 70$,
so people who would still like the game, but not cash out 109$ to get it, would still buy it.
After that, they keep reducing the price, to lure in more people.

Well if that is the case, I would be part of the "Late Majority" due to the simple fact that the game might be overwhelmingly popular in its early-stages, but there is many flaws at the start for every single game, and these flaws might make the person's view of the game all of a sudden change from 'The best game in the world" to the "crappiest game in the world" That is why I would wait till the price goes down, and the company has time to fix the issues that are early in.

This is running a company 1-o-1, the basics of management
Don't assume I'm some hick living under a rock, I know what you're talking about.
The only reason I'm not swinging around economical terms like yourself, is because I am thinking about the people who read this and don't get a clue what's going on.

Well reading "economical terms" does help improve the brain's experience of those who do not have a clue of what's going on, and eventually after some time and more experiencing of it, the people who used to have no clue will eventually get used to it. (my brain is scrambled )

Exactly, I completely agree with you on this one,
however, in a small local gaming store around the corner, it would be much, much better if you knew the guy that was working there, would want what's best for you, by getting to know you.

This is one quote that I approve of very much. If I get to know the person behind the counter that actually knows what is best for the customers, then eventually leading to a repeating effect of that customer coming in more and more to buy things and get advice from the person. Leading to more money being brought in for the store.

It's a good discussion, and I'm glad I finally met somebody who knows his economics, I'd use a lot more marketing terms, but:
A: I learn my courses in a different language (Have to wait till I get out of this shithole and go back to Canada to learn some proper English Marketing)
B: general readability, so others can better understand what we are talking about.

With you two going mostly all-out with economic terms/marketing sales, I'm starting to slowly learn something from this.

I don't really know if this was an insult or a compliment, however I am a fan of letting everybody in on a discussion, without scaring them away with walls of text and hard terms.

Big walls of text always scare me away (Hence me just attempting to get into this conversation )