Paint
- Thread starter blinket
- Start date
Pipes, you know I'm a fan of yours & all, but if you are saying that you are 99.9% certain that stores & fields would charge less money for paint then I believe you're mistaken.
I'll give you stores, stores will likely need to stay competitive, and if there's a MAP on 2000 50cal (I hope there will be) then thats where they will end up.
Fields however, would (and arguably 'should') not pass on the savings. They have a captive market. They do not need to be as price competitive. The players will be paying the same price as they were before, just using smaller paintballs.
If you are advocating that Fields drop their prices, I think that's the worst possible advice for our market, and the quickest way to wipe 20% off the gross industry revenue. I do not believe that 50 quid for a day's paintball is too expensive, and nor do the majority of people who pay it. That spend is needed to keep the wheels of industry turning.
This brings me to my problem with the whole 'idea' of 50cal. The people with existing margins are the fields. The people struggling with margins are the store/dealer/distributor. 50Cal would appear to be offering the field owners even more margin, but doing nothing in the area's where more margin is needed. Thats great if you want a 2-tier industry - manufacturers supplying fields - but not if you want the industry to be a healthy traditional 4-tier, with growth opportunity throughout.
So, the question then becomes - who does GI Milsim want to sell to?
Do you want to sell directly to fields? (thats who you have been visiting so far I believe) If the answer is yes, then you are cutting out 2 area's of the industry immediately. We can do that now, with 68cal, and acheive the same thing, but we wouldn't want to, because it would mean the death of many more stores, and it would only help one section of the marketplace, the one that needs the least help...
I'll give you stores, stores will likely need to stay competitive, and if there's a MAP on 2000 50cal (I hope there will be) then thats where they will end up.
Fields however, would (and arguably 'should') not pass on the savings. They have a captive market. They do not need to be as price competitive. The players will be paying the same price as they were before, just using smaller paintballs.
If you are advocating that Fields drop their prices, I think that's the worst possible advice for our market, and the quickest way to wipe 20% off the gross industry revenue. I do not believe that 50 quid for a day's paintball is too expensive, and nor do the majority of people who pay it. That spend is needed to keep the wheels of industry turning.
This brings me to my problem with the whole 'idea' of 50cal. The people with existing margins are the fields. The people struggling with margins are the store/dealer/distributor. 50Cal would appear to be offering the field owners even more margin, but doing nothing in the area's where more margin is needed. Thats great if you want a 2-tier industry - manufacturers supplying fields - but not if you want the industry to be a healthy traditional 4-tier, with growth opportunity throughout.
So, the question then becomes - who does GI Milsim want to sell to?
Do you want to sell directly to fields? (thats who you have been visiting so far I believe) If the answer is yes, then you are cutting out 2 area's of the industry immediately. We can do that now, with 68cal, and acheive the same thing, but we wouldn't want to, because it would mean the death of many more stores, and it would only help one section of the marketplace, the one that needs the least help...
Missy
When I wrote that post I had (like a lot of people) formed an opinion, however since seeing the product I have changed my view and 100% agree that fields for one should not pass on the saving. I do however think stores will pass on the saving but only in the way of the Retail price.
We offer margin on the guns (infact the same margin that most of the other companies offer) and this is at a time when the company is new. You know as well as I do the more product that get's sold the cheaper the goods become.
I completely understand you point about the tear system that the industry needs, but everyone has to be on the same page for this to happen.................. and I really don't think that would happen, but if we could make it happen I would be the first in the room!
When I wrote that post I had (like a lot of people) formed an opinion, however since seeing the product I have changed my view and 100% agree that fields for one should not pass on the saving. I do however think stores will pass on the saving but only in the way of the Retail price.
We offer margin on the guns (infact the same margin that most of the other companies offer) and this is at a time when the company is new. You know as well as I do the more product that get's sold the cheaper the goods become.
I completely understand you point about the tear system that the industry needs, but everyone has to be on the same page for this to happen.................. and I really don't think that would happen, but if we could make it happen I would be the first in the room!
Stores will pass on the savings. They always do. Paintballs are like any other commodity for a store. Price them lower and more go out the door, price them too high, and the store down the road selling a little cheaper has more going out the door.
For a field however, paintballs are just part of the experience that is being sold. Again, if a field prices paintballs lower they will sell more. But that also means that more will be shot. That changes the "experience", the thing people are really there for. No one goes to a paintball field because they want to buy little speres of gelatin and goo. They want an experience and they want to have fun. The volume of paintballs sold (and shot) affects and changes that experience. This is the primary reason paintball fields in North Americe (especially the USA) have been seeing declines in attendance, long before the recession started. They dropped the price of paintballs so low (even BYOP) at fields that the experience changed to something that less people enjoy. Sure there are lots of people that still enjoy paintball with the low prices (and therefore high volume) but not nearly as many that enjoyed it at the lower volume (higher paintball prices) level.
The problem is though, although some field owners are starting to realize this in North America, most still haven't figured it out. They still feel the only way to compete is to have the lowest paintball prices and that is why when I first heard of .50 cal, I was very concerned. The initial press release focused on paintballs being available for less money for the player. Players for the most part do not understand how cheaper paintballs affects attendance at fields. They just want more paintballs for the same price. How can you blame someone for that? It's perfectly normal. But that doesn't change the fact that the lower priced balls will affect the experience and by extension, attendance at fields.
Cheaper paintballs (at fields), whatever the caliber, will in the long run hurt the industry more than it helps.