What if we just didn't go? Seriously. Don't go. Just don't. Don't do it.
INSTEAD, go to the movies that weekend, but SEE SOMETHING ELSE. Don't punish the theater owners by withholding business, but show Lucas that he is done fisting our childhoods.
"Target has moved on" refers to them finding other brands, not closing.
I like Target, too - they are the least offensive of the big box stores.
Consumers are strange beasts.
A great example of this is the recent furor over 'lead tainted toys'.
So, people complain that lead is in toys - rightfully - and that toys are made in China, etc, etc, and we are all going to hell in a handbasket.
I had a customer come in to our toy store in late November. Was very vocally complaining about how we sell toys made in China. She is carrying around a $14.99 Thomas the Tank Engine product, and pointing out that it's made in China, and why can't she get a good set of trains made in the USA.
I quietly point out to her that in the next rack, we proudly carry Whittle Stop Railroad, a 100% USA made product. She pulls out an engine from the peg, looks at the price, and starts complaining even LOUDER, '$29.99! This is over DOUBLE the cost of this one! That's highway robbery, how can you charge prices like this?'
This is, unfortunately, the conundrum that small business like mine are in - it's the classic triad.
Cheap, quality, or fast.
You can pick two and only two.
If it's made in the USA, labor and material costs are higher. Period, that's the way it is.
If it's made in China, it isn't necessarily dangerous, but you get a lower price.
The SCOTUS ruling allows specialty brands to remain specialty. It allows Nintendo to set the price of their gaming console, and not allow people to undercut or devalue the brand.
The 'high markup of specialty stores' is also a misnomer. I typically sell at MSRP. Target typically discounts, online discounts even more.
Many people at this point pull the 'if you can't compete, get out of the business' card (like a submitter above). People that say that obviously don't get free enterprise. It's not all about price, it's about choice, supply/demand, quality, and a myriad of other aspects that go beyond the simple product.
It's common for small mom/pop manufacturers to see dollar signs, sell to a big box, and be gone the following year. In specialty toys, it happens about half a dozen times a year.
The Supreme Court of the US ruled earlier this year that a manufacturer can set pricing for their product, and enforce retailers to sell at that price. This ruling was primarily to protect 'high end' products from discounters, but goes both ways.
The case was 'Leegin v. PSKS', and is summarized on the docket here:
This ruling is intended to protect a manufacturers brand by keeping discounters from undercutting (and subsequently devaluing) the perception of the brand to the public. Think of Rolex - do you REALLY think it costs them $5,000 to make a Rolex? Of course not, but you aren't buying a Rolex, you are buying the name and the perceived social capital that comes with it.
Let's assume that the manufacturing cost of a Rolex watch is $1250. This watch is sold at wholesale to a retailer for $2500, and has an MSRP of $5000. This is a pretty common pattern (although less so for hi-tech devices).
Now, if Joe's Discount Watch Kiosk in the crappy mall at the other end of town started selling Rolex for $1279, the Rolex name gets diluted, the social prestige goes down, and when Joe's Discount Watch Kiosk closes, the long-term business who has invested in the community, the Rolex brand name, in employing people, and has built the business from the ground up can no longer sell the Rolex for $5000. They end up with reduced cash flow, have to cut their staff, dogs and cats start living together, and all hell breaks lose.
OK, it's not THAT bad, but from the 'real world' (tm) department, I own a specialty toy store. No really, I do. I employ about 15 people, sell at or near MSRP, invest in my community, and build social equity.
When a specialty brand that I have invested in sells to Amazon or Target, I can no longer sell the product, because they discount. So, I have to mark down to sell what I have already purchased. With my reduced margins, I cannot employ 15 people, I have to cut to 12 and make do. I am not selling $5000 watches, I am selling $25 dolls, $40 wooden blocks, etc. My net margins in a good year are about 12% after all expenses, which allows me to pay my mortgage and keep the kids fed and the lights on. When Target, for example, comes in, woos a brand, buys their product, and then discounts the crap out of it, I lose, the manufacturer loses, and the consumers win - for a few months. Then, the brand goes out of business, I have lost margin and as a small locally owned business have to lay off staff, and there is direct damage to the consumer because next year, Target has moved on, the brand is no longer in business, and I can't get it for my loyal customers.
I am 100% in favor of competition, good pricing, fairness to customers, but consumers also have to realize the high cost of discounting overall. This is why the SCOTUS ruling is actually good for business, and good for consumers in the LONG TERM.
Now, how does this apply to the Wii?
Well, the SCOTUS ruling, as I understand it (IANAL) does not specify just minimum pricing, but that a manufacturer can set PRICING. So, if Nintendo says $249.99, it's $249.99 for the console.
Whether or not the retailer is able to stay in business is between the retailer and Nintendo, but one would hope that Nintendo would eat some of the costs of the console to get it out to the public.
Just my pre-coffee, pre-busiest toy shopping day of the year rant.
After you've moved out of your mother's basement and had kids of your own, I recommend that you come re-read your response here. You'll then understand how funny it really is.
What the previous poster is referring to is called 'parenting', and it's what you do as a 'parent' after you have 'reproduced' (which is what is mostly going on on those 'unsavory websites').
sure, but my point was that one set of rules will work just fine for everyone, and the stooges at the RIAA are going after the money. Libraries don't have lots of money. Theoretically, store owners do (even though as a retailer, i can tell you that is not the case)
I heard a rumor that there is actually a place where you can BORROW CD's without PAYING for them and it is usually supported by taxpayer dollars and local cities and states! I also hear that you can borrow 'books' and read them and return them without paying a single royalty to the author.
WHEN will the agencies crack down on this atrocity!//sigh//
Having returned from Toy Fair '07 on Thursday, I'll say this:
The mentos/diet coke thing was only a prototype. He doesn't have it in production yet. What was unique about it was the 'safety mechanism' that allowed you to set things up without accidentally dropping the mentos in the diet coke prematurely.
I still have half my mentos roll from the swag he gave me.
Honestly, it was fun to watch, but is a one-trick pony. The toy has absolutely NO replay value once you have sprayed diet coke everywhere. It's a $1.99 a shot, considering $.99 for the 2 liter of diet coke and $1 for the mentos...
There was WAY cooler stuff, and the stuff I like best requires no batteries.
And yeah, at the risk of karma burn, I own a couple toy stores. I left 22 years of IT a few years ago to have some REAL fun.
Of course people knew how to organize information - on paper or in isolated monolithic computer systems. However, the web was a whole 'nuther animal. It is a mistaken assumption to believe that the 'old skool' methods of archiving and retrieval work in a highly distributed, taxonomy adverse environment such as the Intarwebs.
Unfortunately, you are terribly mistaken. Moreville, along with Rosenfeld and others, have pushed the Information Architecture aspects of the web from the very beginning. What Moreville et al are attempting to do, IMHO, is standardize the taxonomies that designers use when creating systems with ambient findability in mind.
Very little - except for the addition of global accessibility that the Internet provides... In fact, Peter is a graduate of the University of Michigan School of Information (which until recently was the "School of Information and Library Science). We still teach more traditional librarianship (I am an adjunct faculty member and teach at the school, as does Peter) and, in fact, blend the traditional librarianship/archives management role with the new technologies and access vectors that electronic technologies provide to the information retrieval space.
So - your comment is insightful - the difference, really, is in creating appropriate metaphors to expand the traditional librarianship role into the newer methods of information storage and retrieval.
Uhh, all I can say is that my business RELIES on paypal for payments, and today we have lost ALOT of business. At least $1700 in sales. Not being able to use it for a day or so is acceptable? Think outside the box. They are our primary credit card processor. Oh, btw - http://brain-station.com is our store.
Slashdot Mirror
Huhhhuhuhuhuhuhhh.
"Wang"
What if we just didn't go? Seriously. Don't go. Just don't. Don't do it.
INSTEAD, go to the movies that weekend, but SEE SOMETHING ELSE. Don't punish the theater owners by withholding business, but show Lucas that he is done fisting our childhoods.
This makes me happy in a way I find very difficult to describe.
http://www.ubuntu.com/usn/usn-370-1
Burned by that. Prolly fixed now, but that doesn't mean I am eager to resume :D Call me old fashioned.
Just use the program screen if you want to get rooted, you mean. The ONLY time I have ever had a box rooted was when I left screen running.
http://brainstationtoys.com/product/robo-rally-by-avalon-hill
This is total, geeky fun (and you can enjoy it, too!)
Usenet had groups that didn't have *.sex.* or *.beastiality.* in it? Man, I missed a LOT during the 90's...
It was a joke. I was being ironical.*
* the word 'ironical' is also a joke++
++ no it wasn't(1)
(1) actually, yes, it was. But I was being ironical again.
Profanity is the literary crutch for the inarticulate motherfucker.
You sure seem *awfully* familiar with the internal working of Al Qaeda.
:-)
*waves to the nice men reading all our email in Langley, Virginia*
I thought this was a method to take care of STOWAWAYS. you know, like people trying to sneak into the country.
My first thought was, "Wow, that sounds effective."
My second was, "But that is kinda harsh."
My thirs, "Cooooooool."
THAT comment oughta guarantee slashdot being blocked. :D
Nicely played, Sir. Nicely played.
"Target has moved on" refers to them finding other brands, not closing.
I like Target, too - they are the least offensive of the big box stores.
Consumers are strange beasts.
A great example of this is the recent furor over 'lead tainted toys'.
So, people complain that lead is in toys - rightfully - and that toys are made in China, etc, etc, and we are all going to hell in a handbasket.
I had a customer come in to our toy store in late November. Was very vocally complaining about how we sell toys made in China. She is carrying around a $14.99 Thomas the Tank Engine product, and pointing out that it's made in China, and why can't she get a good set of trains made in the USA.
I quietly point out to her that in the next rack, we proudly carry Whittle Stop Railroad, a 100% USA made product. She pulls out an engine from the peg, looks at the price, and starts complaining even LOUDER, '$29.99! This is over DOUBLE the cost of this one! That's highway robbery, how can you charge prices like this?'
This is, unfortunately, the conundrum that small business like mine are in - it's the classic triad.
Cheap, quality, or fast.
You can pick two and only two.
If it's made in the USA, labor and material costs are higher. Period, that's the way it is.
If it's made in China, it isn't necessarily dangerous, but you get a lower price.
The SCOTUS ruling allows specialty brands to remain specialty. It allows Nintendo to set the price of their gaming console, and not allow people to undercut or devalue the brand.
The 'high markup of specialty stores' is also a misnomer. I typically sell at MSRP. Target typically discounts, online discounts even more.
Many people at this point pull the 'if you can't compete, get out of the business' card (like a submitter above). People that say that obviously don't get free enterprise. It's not all about price, it's about choice, supply/demand, quality, and a myriad of other aspects that go beyond the simple product.
Hexabits is the first one to come to mind.
It's common for small mom/pop manufacturers to see dollar signs, sell to a big box, and be gone the following year. In specialty toys, it happens about half a dozen times a year.
The Supreme Court of the US ruled earlier this year that a manufacturer can set pricing for their product, and enforce retailers to sell at that price. This ruling was primarily to protect 'high end' products from discounters, but goes both ways.
The case was 'Leegin v. PSKS', and is summarized on the docket here:
http://docket.medill.northwestern.edu/archives/004185.php
This ruling is intended to protect a manufacturers brand by keeping discounters from undercutting (and subsequently devaluing) the perception of the brand to the public. Think of Rolex - do you REALLY think it costs them $5,000 to make a Rolex? Of course not, but you aren't buying a Rolex, you are buying the name and the perceived social capital that comes with it.
Let's assume that the manufacturing cost of a Rolex watch is $1250. This watch is sold at wholesale to a retailer for $2500, and has an MSRP of $5000. This is a pretty common pattern (although less so for hi-tech devices).
Now, if Joe's Discount Watch Kiosk in the crappy mall at the other end of town started selling Rolex for $1279, the Rolex name gets diluted, the social prestige goes down, and when Joe's Discount Watch Kiosk closes, the long-term business who has invested in the community, the Rolex brand name, in employing people, and has built the business from the ground up can no longer sell the Rolex for $5000. They end up with reduced cash flow, have to cut their staff, dogs and cats start living together, and all hell breaks lose.
OK, it's not THAT bad, but from the 'real world' (tm) department, I own a specialty toy store. No really, I do. I employ about 15 people, sell at or near MSRP, invest in my community, and build social equity.
When a specialty brand that I have invested in sells to Amazon or Target, I can no longer sell the product, because they discount. So, I have to mark down to sell what I have already purchased. With my reduced margins, I cannot employ 15 people, I have to cut to 12 and make do. I am not selling $5000 watches, I am selling $25 dolls, $40 wooden blocks, etc. My net margins in a good year are about 12% after all expenses, which allows me to pay my mortgage and keep the kids fed and the lights on. When Target, for example, comes in, woos a brand, buys their product, and then discounts the crap out of it, I lose, the manufacturer loses, and the consumers win - for a few months. Then, the brand goes out of business, I have lost margin and as a small locally owned business have to lay off staff, and there is direct damage to the consumer because next year, Target has moved on, the brand is no longer in business, and I can't get it for my loyal customers.
I am 100% in favor of competition, good pricing, fairness to customers, but consumers also have to realize the high cost of discounting overall. This is why the SCOTUS ruling is actually good for business, and good for consumers in the LONG TERM.
Now, how does this apply to the Wii?
Well, the SCOTUS ruling, as I understand it (IANAL) does not specify just minimum pricing, but that a manufacturer can set PRICING. So, if Nintendo says $249.99, it's $249.99 for the console.
Whether or not the retailer is able to stay in business is between the retailer and Nintendo, but one would hope that Nintendo would eat some of the costs of the console to get it out to the public.
Just my pre-coffee, pre-busiest toy shopping day of the year rant.
After you've moved out of your mother's basement and had kids of your own, I recommend that you come re-read your response here. You'll then understand how funny it really is.
What the previous poster is referring to is called 'parenting', and it's what you do as a 'parent' after you have 'reproduced' (which is what is mostly going on on those 'unsavory websites').
sure, but my point was that one set of rules will work just fine for everyone, and the stooges at the RIAA are going after the money. Libraries don't have lots of money. Theoretically, store owners do (even though as a retailer, i can tell you that is not the case)
I heard a rumor that there is actually a place where you can BORROW CD's without PAYING for them and it is usually supported by taxpayer dollars and local cities and states! I also hear that you can borrow 'books' and read them and return them without paying a single royalty to the author.
//sigh//
WHEN will the agencies crack down on this atrocity!
Funny that there is no mention so far in this thread about the Erector robot.
It's wifi, built-in skype protocol, cool treads, camera - completely controllable from a remote computer via web interface, and programmable.
It was cool, but you had to get past the Erector folks to see it, or have an appointment.
Having returned from Toy Fair '07 on Thursday, I'll say this:
The mentos/diet coke thing was only a prototype. He doesn't have it in production yet. What was unique about it was the 'safety mechanism' that allowed you to set things up without accidentally dropping the mentos in the diet coke prematurely.
I still have half my mentos roll from the swag he gave me.
Honestly, it was fun to watch, but is a one-trick pony. The toy has absolutely NO replay value once you have sprayed diet coke everywhere. It's a $1.99 a shot, considering $.99 for the 2 liter of diet coke and $1 for the mentos...
There was WAY cooler stuff, and the stuff I like best requires no batteries.
And yeah, at the risk of karma burn, I own a couple toy stores. I left 22 years of IT a few years ago to have some REAL fun.
http://brain-station.com/
REAL toys by REAL parents for REAL kids. No 'tech toys' here, folks, and they will be used again and again.
Of course people knew how to organize information - on paper or in isolated monolithic computer systems. However, the web was a whole 'nuther animal. It is a mistaken assumption to believe that the 'old skool' methods of archiving and retrieval work in a highly distributed, taxonomy adverse environment such as the Intarwebs.
Unfortunately, you are terribly mistaken. Moreville, along with Rosenfeld and others, have pushed the Information Architecture aspects of the web from the very beginning. What Moreville et al are attempting to do, IMHO, is standardize the taxonomies that designers use when creating systems with ambient findability in mind.
Very little - except for the addition of global accessibility that the Internet provides... In fact, Peter is a graduate of the University of Michigan School of Information (which until recently was the "School of Information and Library Science). We still teach more traditional librarianship (I am an adjunct faculty member and teach at the school, as does Peter) and, in fact, blend the traditional librarianship/archives management role with the new technologies and access vectors that electronic technologies provide to the information retrieval space.
So - your comment is insightful - the difference, really, is in creating appropriate metaphors to expand the traditional librarianship role into the newer methods of information storage and retrieval.
Uhhhh. No.
:-)
I worked at Ars Digita in the mid-early days, and I won't give Phillip the $$$.
Uhh, all I can say is that my business RELIES on paypal for payments, and today we have lost ALOT of business. At least $1700 in sales. Not being able to use it for a day or so is acceptable? Think outside the box. They are our primary credit card processor. Oh, btw - http://brain-station.com is our store.