Slashdot Mirror
UK's Largest Specialist Video Games Retailer Enters Administration
RogueyWon writes "The GAME Group, owners of high street chains GAME and Gamestation, which between them account for a large majority of the UK's specialist games retail market, have entered into administration. In the hours following the Group's entry into administration, hundreds of stores were closed and thousands of staff made redundant. While some of the factors behind the Group's downfall, such as stores located too close to each other and overly-ambitious international expansion, were likely unique to the UK-based company, other factors, such as price competition from supermarkets and online retailers, as well as a reliance on a fickle pre-owned games market, may have wider application."
Not sure what GAME uk's demise means for the australian game line, but i keep wondering how they *STAY* in business. They are consistently higher then everyone else simply for price.
Consider their biggest competitor in the retail market is probably a place called JB hifi, and in shopping centers they're often so close (physically) together that you can see the big tags advertising their price for games (Specially up coming and new release ones). Yet, GAME au's prices are always more expensive.
When they go out of business in AU, I will not be supprised. I've bought games from them (but only second hand ones, and at most 3 - typically jbhifi is cheaper for those as well). But AU's model can be summed up in 3 links:
http://www.game.com.au/diablo-iii/pc-games/DIABLO3PC
http://www.jbhifionline.com.au/game/pc-games/diablo-3/654000
http://www.game-lane.com.au/pc-mac-games/2782-diablo-iii-3-pc.html
To me, in AU, its not "how did they go out of business" its "how do they stay alive?".
I'm British. The terms "entered administration" and "made redundant" are in normal everyday use in Britain. I think it is reasonable to assume that the writer is British and that it would never have occurred to him that these phrases would be misunderstood by an American. I'm sure it wasn't done just to wind you up*. * I'm not sure if the phrase "wind you up" is used in the US. It means to say something with the intent to provoke.
While they are both Outdoor equipment/clothing retailers Blacks and Millets were aimed at very different markets. Millets was aimed squarely at family campers and casual hikers, whereas Blacks was more specialised and aimed at serious hikers, campers, climbers etc. The seperate stores allowed them to target their stock and marketing at their particular markets more successfully.
This kind of differentiation is important when you have very disparate groups of customers. Serious hikers/campers/climbers are pretty snobby about their gear so the product ranges they demand are higher end and higher price, the kind of stuff that puts off casual shoppers.
Of course in the end both stores have suffered from the prevalence of big warehouse style outdoor equipment stores that have cheaper prices and enough space to effectively service both markets. Millets is now effectively dead and Blacks is seriously struggling.
Not only that, look at the terms themselves.
If you (or your job) has been "made redundant", it means - quite literally - that they no longer have a use for you. It doesn't matter what version of English you speak, that's the meaning of the word. It may not specifically state that would mean losing your job, but the context is there and useful - and differs from "being sacked/fired" quite significantly. It wasn't that they sacked you, they didn't need you any more. It was NOTHING you did wrong. You were simply redundant to the business. We even use terms like "redundancy money" where the business compensates you when it stops your contract because it *COULDN'T* find a use for you any more.
And to "enter administration". That means that some process has taken over to administer the business. Not bankruptcy, because we have that word too and that wouldn't be administration of the business but a final "winding up", but someone is there to administer things - presumably because they can't do it themselves.
Though the terms are not clear-as-day, they are no worse than any other English phrasing and at least hint at what they mean (I'd expect most people to understand them by the context they are used and the inference of the meaning of the words). I don't see why you can't pick up those words from context, to be honest, or just from their meaning - especially when I spend a LOT of my time looking up what the hell certain Americanisms mean because they're not at all obvious (John Doe? Really? You can't just say you don't know their names?).
Company enters Chapter Whatever? What the hell does that mean. The fifth amendment? Eh? Which one's that? What does it say? Amendment to what? Do the other 4 take precedence?
Although the answers are easy to find, they aren't anywhere near easy to infer just from the context given. English is one of the most poetic, cross-culture, verbose and diverse languages. Use it and the facilities available within it, and people can infer what you mean. Numbering everything is only logical if everyone has a reference list of what those numbers refer to and memorises it. But the word "redundant" is present and means the same in both languages - it's just a particular instance of it that doesn't fully explain the implications of your "redundancy" but that the context does.
Don't even get me started on navigation in America. Xing-Ped (Someone had to TELL me what it meant, and that it was "backwards" and I only speak English!) and 49th/50th/51st/52nd street drive me mad. It's abuse of language where it's not necessary, no imagination, nothing to make anything or anyone stand out and not using meanings have been attached to words for centuries.