Is paintball too cheap?

[leach]

You're just trolling now right? Repeat custom is core to nearly every business, especially one as consumable-driven as paintball.

Of course repeat custom is core to every business however without the players, how are tournaments going to operate? Without the players "who play for 3 months then quit" noone new will join paintball and therefore there will be no new custom.. following this after the exisitng customer base disappears, who is left to take their place? I think this argument is ridiculous! I agree I dislike all the kids that think they're "sponsored" or that the sport owes them anything however if paintball is too expensive whos going to take the places of the existing "repeat custom" when they inevitably quit? samfrost is right on this one.

 

[chuckwood]

Always about Tournies isn't it? If the tourney scene whittled down to nothing Paintball in the Uk would still be going on as the UK is a very small slice of the worldwide tournament paintball income generating pie.
Why not have stricter rules about 'Amateur' and 'Pro' like there used to be, where you have to play and work your way up?

Dusty, has the angry stick fallen on you today?

 

[Exile]

Of course repeat custom is core to every business however without the players, how are tournaments going to operate? Without the players "who play for 3 months then quit" noone new will join paintball and therefore there will be no new custom.. following this after the exisitng customer base disappears, who is left to take their place? I think this argument is ridiculous! I agree I dislike all the kids that think they're "sponsored" or that the sport owes them anything however if paintball is too expensive whos going to take the places of the existing "repeat custom" when they inevitably quit? samfrost is right on this one.

Your argument is horrendously flawed Leach.

What benefit to anyone is the kid who plays for 3 months, then sells up at a huge undercut (thereby killing any resale value, and making it harder to sell your old kit to buy a new gun) and never comes back? Why not accept a smaller number of people that will have a commitment of longer than 3 months, and will plow money back into the sport over a sustained period. You know about the 80/20 rule of business yes?

 

[samfrost1308]

thanks leach, exactly the kind of reasoned comment i was trying to make, repeat custom is of course best, but any custom is better than no custom at all, surely you realise this?

 

[samfrost1308]

yes but by making it more expensive you wont get the people who start and then stay! in this day and age people do not have 1000 pounds to spend on something they think they might enjoy! if it is possible to get into the sport well for 200 quid, then when the player decides hey like it they then buy a 500 quid gun. a very, very small amount of people are willing to spend a grand on a new sport

 

[Exile]

thanks leach, exactly the kind of reasoned comment i was trying to make, repeat custom is of course best, but any custom is better than no custom at all, surely you realise this?

You still haven't answered how having a players drop out every 3 months is better than having a smaller, committed core of players that are in it for the long haul.

I'm guessing you haven't studied any form of business or economics and certainly haven't tried applying said theory in the real world.

yes but by making it more expensive you wont get the people who start and then stay! in this day and age people do not have 1000 pounds to spend on something they think they might enjoy! if it is possible to get into the sport well for 200 quid, then when the player decides hey like it they then buy a 500 quid gun. a very, very small amount of people are willing to spend a grand on a new sport

But that small amount of people will bring in the same or even greater amount of revenue as the dozens of £200 entry levellers.

Again, I refer you to the 80/20 rule.

 

[Stencil]

Your argument is horrendously flawed Leach.

What benefit to anyone is the kid who plays for 3 months, then sells up at a huge undercut (thereby killing any resale value, and making it harder to sell your old kit to buy a new gun) and never comes back? Why not accept a smaller number of people that will have a commitment of longer than 3 months, and will plow money back into the sport over a sustained period. You know about the 80/20 rule of business yes?

You don't HAVE to sell your kit. If you were planning to sell it from the moment you bought it, you probably shouldn't have.

I'm guessing you haven't studied any form of business or economics and certainly haven't tried applying said theory in the real world.

That's just rude.

 

[J4mie r0gan]

Your argument is horrendously flawed Leach.

What benefit to anyone is the kid who plays for 3 months, then sells up at a huge undercut (thereby killing any resale value, and making it harder to sell your old kit to buy a new gun) and never comes back? Why not accept a smaller number of people that will have a commitment of longer than 3 months, and will plow money back into the sport over a sustained period. You know about the 80/20 rule of business yes?

He was being facetious... That rarely happens so your argument is massively flawed. If you want tournament paintball to be more expensive therefore cutting the number of players, like stencil said your in the wrong place, either go to lawn bowls as previously advised or keep paintball as your hobby and stay the hell out of the semi-pro side.

 

[samfrost1308]

ok so having 100 core players, who play once a week and buy a 500 pound gun is better than having 1000 players who play once a fortnight and buy a 200 quid gun? apparently Mr.business and economics hasnt studied his maths

 

[leach]

You still haven't answered how having a players drop out every 3 months is better than having a smaller, committed core of players that are in it for the long haul.

I'm guessing you haven't studied any form of business or economics and certainly haven't tried applying said theory in the real world.

There already is a committed core of people which is what samfrost has written, all he is saying is that without new blood, who is going to take over the old core of players? Also although there may be a small core of players, this is hardly going to keep a tournament - a business - going without new players to help expand and to use their money to fund these tournaments. I can't actually believe you're arguing that less, more commited players is a better scenario than committed players along side those who come and go.. As samfrost has said, surely new players, some albeit for not very long, is better than no new players at all.