Lik-Sang Is Out Of Business

AKAImBatman writes "Thanks to Sony's heavy handed tactics, popular game importer Lik-Sang is closing its doors. All Lik-Sang customers are having their orders cancelled and refunded. Any attempt to place a new order redirects your web browser to the news of Lik-Sang's demise." From the announcement: "'Today is Sony Europe victory about PSP, tomorrow is Sony Europe's ongoing pressure about PlayStation 3. With this precedent set, next week could already be the stage for complaints from Sony America about the same thing, or from other console manufacturers about other consoles to other regions, or even from any publisher about any specific software title to any country they don't see fit. It's the beginning of the end... of the World as we know it', stated Pascal Clarysse, formerly known as the Marketing Manager of Lik-Sang.com. 'Blame it on Sony. That's the latest dark spot in their shameful track record as gaming industry leader. The Empire finally won, a few dominating retailers from the UK probably will rejoice the news, but everybody else in the gaming world lost something today.'" Many thanks to Sony for ruining it for the rest of us. I hope that your business model makes up for the customer goodwill you're lighting on fire today. Update: 10/24 21:34 GMT by Z : Eurogamer has Sony's response to Lik-Sang's accusations.

Comments

Don't understand

[pubjames]

I really don't understand how Sony can do this kind of thing. Isn't this the kind of thing the World Trade Organisation is supposed to prevent? I thought that there was supposed to be essentially "free trade" between countries in the WTO. Or is it only free trade that benefits corporations that's allowed, not that which benefits us lowly consumers...

Boycotts don't work

[Robmonster]

Boycotts are often called for but they just don't work.

Even though this move against Lik-Sang is outrageous, it turns out that people just don't care enough to deprive themselves of entertainment.

Re:Boycotts don't work

[Red Flayer]

Boycotts are often called for but they just don't work.

Wrong -- insufficiently complete boycotts don't work. Boycotts are very effective provided that:

1. Enough people participate to make the cost of ignoring the boycott greater than the cost savings or revenue increase associated with whatever actions prompted the boycott.

2. The company that is being boycotted sees the boycott as being a long-term issue.

The following factors increase the likelihood of a boycott working against Sony:

1. Sony depends on volume sales for profitability. Their non-unit costs are significant (advertising, marketing, admin costs, etc) which means that they need to sell a lot of units of each product to make a profit.
2. Sony is aware of the bad rep they are accumulating. Should that rep cross over into the mainstream, it could _really_ hurt their bottom line. Companies with already-weak public images are more vulnerable to boycotts.

There are some factors that help Sony withstand a boycott:

1. Most of their products are non-commodity goods. One cannot simply substitute movie X from Sony with movie Y from Columbia/Tristar in the market. This is true of any of their IP-derived products (music, games, etc), so consumers are less likely to go without the Sony product. This is especially true with the game industry, as the field of competitors is very small.
2. Sony is an extremely large company with deep pockets. It's quite possible that they can weather any smaller boycott of a few years duration (and given the short-term memory of at least the American consumer, even a few years is more than enough).
3. Sony is a global corporation, and the larger the scale of a boycott, the harder it is to pull off.

I'm sure I've missed a lot of factors, but it is a fallacy to believe that boycotts don't work. Any company that ignores their customer base for too long will inevitably lose market share (unless, of course, there are market inequities (like monopoly status for IP distribution)) to their competitors.

My point is that a boycott WILL help (if only only a small scale), as long as it's a vocal boycott that hits the press. What's needed is a Sony insider to write a scathing tell-all book that makes the non-fiction best-seller list :).

Well, crap.

[Rob T Firefly]

I may not have been the biggest Lik-Sang customer ever, in fact apart from a few relatively small purchases I mainly used their site for window-shopping, drooling over all the stuff I couldn't afford yet but wanted to save up for. They were often the only way to avoid the cesspits of eBay for certain things, and they always went above and beyond in terms of customer service for me.

Sure, they were a Hong Kong import/export warehouse who wrote websites in broken English, but they really seemed to care about making people happy more than the rest of them that just want to shift merchandise. They had news. They had reviews. They had style.

I feel like I've just lost the modern Internet version of the classic little mom-and-pop shop that always had the coolest stuff.

What's the alternative?

[Kadin2048]

Boycotts don't work because consumers don't like giving stuff up.

In this case, you could always just pirate it instead of buying. Still gives them mindshare, but no profits. Seem to me that's the only way you'd ever accomplish a Sony boycott.

Consumers are sheep; unless provided an equally-attractive alternative, they'll never really give anything they enjoy up, no matter how repugnant its production might be.

Re:What's the alternative?

[NekoXP]

I am sure Nike really miss the few hundred dollars you'd spend on them, compared to the many billions they make off everyone else.

At the end of the day, you can't effectively boycott a company which takes in so much cash per week as Nike, Sony or so on. You may win morally and feel nice inside but they will never see any impact on their bottom line. They probably own a bunch of brands you buy anyway, you just don't know it. It's pretty hard to do when these companies are so big and have so many assets and sub-brands.

However, doing it to the PS3 might be easy; you can make Sony Computer Entertainment look up from their beanbag chairs, by making the Wii the top selling console this Christmas. Or the XBox360. It won't take much. Or do things like buy a DS instead of a PSP - but, well, everyone is doing that ANYWAY. Your choice.

That would be easy to do given their problems with production we so hear rumors about. It only takes a hiccup over that holiday buying period for them to take notice. After years of domination of the console market, why not just show that over 2 or 3 weeks, you can knock them off the CHARTS (not lose them money or mindshare..) and stop them being so smug? Then they get the moral message of it.

You can buy a PS3 after Christmas if you are not still too disgusted with them.

Depriving them of money or mindshare isn't the answer, making a recordable, long-lived statement is, and I think having them lose the holiday season top-seller contest is a prime target.

Re:What's the alternative?

[Jerf]

Consumers are sheep;

People who call other people "sheep" because they don't share your priorities are arrogant assholes.

"People" have no reason to know Lik-Sang is being shut down, and no reason to care. Seriously, why should they? What priority should Lik-Sang displace? How well things are at work? Should I take time off from spending time with my family or any number of other things in my life to Take Action(TM) about a small company that I've only barely heard of?

You can't care about everything. Shall I call you a sheep because you don't devote 10 hours a week to the plight of African diamond miners? Or because you didn't shout out to Breast Cancer awareness in your post?

Any given human can only worry about so many things at a time. Many, many, many of them are way more important than whether Sony is shutting down Lik-Sang. It may be an interesting story and maybe some people should work on it, but calling people "sheep" because they can't keep up with every sin, both real and perceived, of every corporation they deal with is just arrogant.

I guarantee you you don't even meet your own standard for "non-sheepness", if you took the time to articulate it. (Of course, most people who toss around the word "sheep" seem to simply know they aren't a sheep.) The reason I can guarantee this is that, for example, to explain this situation to my wife who probably isn't even aware that games are imported because they are never released here, let alone who Lik-Sang is, would take several minutes. In order to worry about all the things of a similar magnitude in life that occur would take way more than 100% of your life. We are not sheep for not spending more than 100% of our time worrying about your particular choice of sins in the world.

Why they hate the grey market.

[Kadin2048]

They were bypassing Sony's "official" channels and hurting their ability to price discriminate.

The 'grey market' is an equalizer; it's a basically unified marketplace that defies the attempts of the monopolists to charge different prices for the same thing in different places, by taking advantage of the cheap global transportation that we're blessed with today.

This is why it's so hated.

Re:Why they hate the grey market.

[czarangelus]

I notice that corporations want all the benefits of globalization (ie: cheap labor) with none of the deteraments (cheap imported products.)

Re:correct

[Hijacked Public]

Photography has had a grey market for years and manufacturers have more or less resigned themselves to its existence. They take specific steps to protect their business arrangements, Canon USA will not provide warranty service for a non-Canon USA imported item, but they generally do not pressure retailers.

So camera manufacturers have figured out how to live with it, I'd like to see why Sony has gotten the idea that it is better to sue it out of existence.

Re:BOYCOTT SONY!

[AKAImBatman]

So if you want to boycott Sony, you also have to boycott "Weird Al," something Slashdot may not enjoy doing.

I think we all need to send a polite letter to Mr. Yankovic that we cannot purchase his music because of his distributor. With any luck, that will add a semi-important figure to the cause.

Does anyone remember the old Sony?

[William_Lee]

The one that used to actually make great TVs, decent quality, feature rich consumer electronics devices, revolutionized and revived console gaming with the PSX, after revolutionizing portable music with the walkman?!

Didn't think so!

Ever since Sony acquired large media properties, the old Sony has been slowly dismantled piece by piece, as one horrible business decision after another is foisted on the consumer by the influence of the media divisions. If Sony wasn't so concerned about defending their media units (dvds,cds,film,etc.), we wouldn't have had things like the root kit fiasco, crippled MP3 players, and $600 gaming systems. We also might have a company that focuses on what they did best, delivering consumer electronics to a willing market.

This is just the latest in a string of strong arm tactics from a company that has lost its roots and its way. Apparently, hitting them in the wallet is the only chance of getting them to change. Maybe if the PS3 flops, they will be forced to reexamine their structure and strategy.

I'm all for the calls of BOYCOTT! I wasn't going to buy an overpriced PS3 anyways, but I'm not going to be buying other Sony products either.

Lik-Sang was a great, quirky outfit. They'll be sorely missed!

Re:BOYCOTT SONY!

[Wilson_6500]

Sometimes I think it just would make more sense to pirate Al's music, then just mail him a check. Let him take care of distributing it.

Re:BOYCOTT SONY!

[Dare nMc]

It also means you can't buy any music by "Weird Al" Yankovic.

Does that also mean no Apple, Dell, HP, or Toshiba Laptops which use sony manufactured batteries?

Re:They are everyone.

[Some_Llama]

"Most people do not care about ethical dilemmas if taking the 'high road' costs more than a few dollars extra."

That's easy to say, but try working a low wage job and supporting a family, it's not that people don't care about these issues, it's that they can't afford to care.

I have a wife and 3 children.

I'd rather not shop at walmart, but I can't afford to spend 100 dollars more per month by going "the high road".

I'd rather animals are treated humanely and then killed humanely for their meat, but I can't afford 5 dollars a pound for hamburger or 7 dollars a pound for chicken.

Maybe what we need to do is rally around higher pay standards for the middle and lower classes, then we CAN make decisions that are the morally correct ones...

Re:Are you a walking billboard?

[bynary]

In most cases, the old adage "you get what you pay for" holds true.

I completely disagree with you on this point. The best pair of running shoes I ever purchased was $15 at Shopko. My track coach gave everyone a list of criteria to meet for an approved pair of shoes. He personally checked each pair and used the pair I bought as the example of a good running shoe.

What are sunglasses for? Shielding your eyes from the sun. A pair of $5 glasses with a high SPF rating does just as good of a job blocking out UV as a $200 pair of designer sunglasses. Ray Bans and Oakleys don't have some magical properties that make them better at blocking out UV. They just might look cooler and be made from more expensive materials (even then it's probably the difference between $1.00 of platinum and $0.05 of aluminum).

...I resent advertising for them.

This I agree with wholeheartedly. I buy most of my clothing from the discount rack at Old Navy (because their clothes just happen to be designed for people with my body type). I don't buy anything from them full price. However, I own nothing that actually broadcasts "Old Navy". Just like you, I don't feel like being a walking billboard for any company.

Re:Huh?

[Alsee]

why would a UK court support that position?

Actually that is still an open question of weather the courts would uphold or throw out Sony's charges against Lik Sang were the case to be actually litigated.

A large company does not need actually enforcable legal claims in order to litigate a small company (or individual) into bankruptcy. Especially when they start filing lawsuits in fucking foreign courts. Lik Sang is a small Hong Kong company with no presense in the UK, and suddenly they find someone stuffing in they face a notice ok UK court proceedings against them.

One option is to simply ignoring the foreign court which has no juridiction against them, but that would mean the litigating party (Sony) would win any and all court motions by un-opposed default, no matter how bogus those court motions were, and the attacked company would eternally face the propect that that foreign monstrosity of bogus default rulings would come crashing down on them somehow some day. The eternal headache of an entire foreign legal system trying every method to strike at their business deallings and to get at Lik Sang iself, to enforce the unopposed default rulings against them.

Another option when you get that notice of foreign court action against you, is to rush out and locate and pay for some lawyer in that country, and to rush to supply that lawyer with the facts and other information of the case, and have him do his research and work to figure out the proper legal strategy and response to the case, and to manage to get that appropriate response filed with the court within the deadline listed on the court papers. Meeting that court deadline is really rough under those circumstances. And then of course you have to pay a legal team to actually fight out that legal battle for however long. And when you *do* take this option, going into that foreign court to argue the case usually involves an implict legal acknowledgement that you *accept* that that court has jurisdiction over you. You generally cannot both argue that the case against you is bogus *and* argue that the court you are in has no authority over you in the first place. By accepting the court's jurisdiction you are placing your head on the chopping block for that random foriegn nation's entire legal system... and you have been running your business perfectly legally under your LOCAL laws and god-knows how many ways you can get screwed because that random foriegn legal system is different.

And then of court there's the real killer... you go ahead and prepare to fight the good fight in the UK court room.... and before the judge ever rules on anything... you find yourself served with simultaneous court filings in the US and in Austrailia and in France and in Germany and every other country where Sony has lawyers already on in retainer. At which point it's all over. It doesn't matter if your business is 100% legal and if you would win each and every court case. A tiny company like Lik Sang cannot possibly afford the cost of a score or more of lawyers fighting multiple simultaneous court battles in various countries across the globe for years on end.

Oh, and lets not forget that Sony has been bleeding Lik Sang for YEARS with a series of LEGALLY BOGUS international lawsuits. For example here is a lawsuit over mod chips where Lik Sang was forced to give up the court fight and paid Sony an undislosed extortion payment to survive.... yet here is an ultimate Australian ruling on the issue showing that the mod chips (and Lik Sang's business) was perfectly legal in Australia and proving that Lik Sang was bled legal costs fighting a case where Lik Sang was in the right and paid Sony settlement $$$ to escape for a court battle where Lik Sang was in the right.

Lik Sang's business annoys Sony. It doesn't matter if Sony has any valid legal claim or not, Sony is big enough that the

Re:Are you a walking billboard?

[0xdeadbeef]

Funny that, I've been told by some rather serious runners to avoid expensive shoes, because they're gimmicks.

But you miss the point entirely. The purpose of the branding is to illustrate your disposible income as a measure of status. The less sophisticated the audience, the more obvious the branding. That's is why the logos on clothing for high-schoolers is far more prominent than the clothing for adults. When you buy Oakleys, or Air Jordans, or whatever today's fad is, you are quite literally paying for the right to display how much money you have to lose.