Godzilla's Left Toe
Member
lol
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Jimquisition: Nintendo - A Shit Distributor And Fuckheaded Toymaker (Nov. 28, 2016)
- Thread starter L~A
- Start date
lol
TwoDurans
"Never said I wasn't a hypocrite."
Timely.
boiled goose
good with gravy
I dont buy into the scarcity induced to drive demand nonsense. That's not how economics work and it's horrible business.
It's just money left on the table. The gains go to scalpers, not Nintendo. Plus it results in horrible will.
Any slight up tick in interest is completely neutered by not being able to find the item in stores. Higher price gains dont go to Nintendo.
I attribute it to Nintendo's incompetence and not 7understanding their own markets.
They are WAY too conservative in production and suck at alternative channels for distribution.
Their horrible secretive ambiguous communication is part of the problem too.
Many things that got horribly expensive in second hand markets because of limited initial supply eventually got second runs. Splatoon amiibo, pikimn 3 ,etc.
It's just money left on the table. The gains go to scalpers, not Nintendo. Plus it results in horrible will.
Any slight up tick in interest is completely neutered by not being able to find the item in stores. Higher price gains dont go to Nintendo.
I attribute it to Nintendo's incompetence and not 7understanding their own markets.
They are WAY too conservative in production and suck at alternative channels for distribution.
Their horrible secretive ambiguous communication is part of the problem too.
Many things that got horribly expensive in second hand markets because of limited initial supply eventually got second runs. Splatoon amiibo, pikimn 3 ,etc.
rackham
Banned
Everyone keeps saying "NINTENDO is leaving money on the table therefore artificial scarcity isn't real!"
Yeah ok..that's not how marketing works. Now Nintendo will be in the news (and I've already seen stories about this) about how they have a brand new thing out that is hard to find and "everyone" wants it- thus making a killing during holiday sales or whenever they keep releasing it.
Sure, they can meet the demand for the products they have, but why do that when they can create even more demand by making headlines like this in news outlets outside of their normal demographic.
Anyone asking for proof only needs to watch the actual news once in a while.
Anyone needing more proof only needs to look at the past tactics of Nintendo during the NES and SNES. Nintendo has controlled their supply all the way back to the NES and this has been chronicled in sources like Console Wars.
Yeah ok..that's not how marketing works. Now Nintendo will be in the news (and I've already seen stories about this) about how they have a brand new thing out that is hard to find and "everyone" wants it- thus making a killing during holiday sales or whenever they keep releasing it.
Sure, they can meet the demand for the products they have, but why do that when they can create even more demand by making headlines like this in news outlets outside of their normal demographic.
Anyone asking for proof only needs to watch the actual news once in a while.
Anyone needing more proof only needs to look at the past tactics of Nintendo during the NES and SNES. Nintendo has controlled their supply all the way back to the NES and this has been chronicled in sources like Console Wars.
Godzilla's Left Toe
Member
Keep telling that to yourself.
mambadragon
Banned
So I've seen a bunch of posts about these videos but never watched one... I commend all of you for being able to look past the guy's outfit, but I just can't.
Before anyone points and says, "Look! Artificial scarcity!"
It'd make sense to find out if Nintendo has some warehouse where they are storing all these NES Classics and only shipping out a small portion at a time to cause it. As opposed to having to catch up with demand in the holiday season and shipping as many consoles as possible across the Americas/Europe/Oceania.
And of course the 1 purchase per person in the tweet is obviously to prevent scalping.
Affeinvasion
Member
It's just a costume...and really it's like a shirt and a tie and most of the video isn't of him on camera anyway...
Then why do toymakers pursue the same strategy, despite the economics not working?
There's pogfucking and boglin shrines too!
Mihael Mello Keehl
Banned
Idk what Nintendo doing but they knew many people were going to buy it since they didnt allow preorders 😑
LordRaptor
Member
The actual question is why do people believe that it is "a strategy" despite the economics (the facts) not working.
Because businesses do unreasonable things all the time? That said I agree with you on the issue. This is not a ploy to somehow drive up interest.
LordRaptor
Member
What businesses do things that demonstrably hurt their own bottom line?
"They do it because they're fucking dicks, stop being fucking dicks" is the argument of a child. Or a Jimquisition.
e:
Do things that demonstrably hurt their own bottom line without a political agenda, or repeatedly after an initial fuck up anyway
Discrimination is a very common occurence, as is nepotism. As I wrote, I agree on this particular matter, but "Company does X even though in general it has proven often enough to be ineffective" is not insane.
Companies make bad decisions all the time and economic science is...not the most accurate one anyway.
Because toymakers have used it time and time again as a valid approach to prolonging interest in said product? Nintendo has always gone for the long legs approach anyway.
LordRaptor
Member
You don't see any problem with saying "this definitely happened because this always happens" as a purely self-supporting argument?
I mean, it would seem obvious that a thing "everyone knows" that "always happens" would have, you know, some documented evidence that it has ever happened, because its not just nonsensical at prima facie, its actually illegal for most limited companies as a breach of fiduciary duty
I posted documented evidence that Nintendo employed this practice back in the 80s and 90s. I have other books by other authors with actual research that recount Nintendo's history that corroborate the same information, so it establishes historical precedence. We also have a court case that the US government brought against Nintendo which included price fixing through means of inventory control, licensing fees and retailer bullying which Nintendo opted to settle.
Here is what I don't understand. If this were Sony, or MS, accused of said practices, and both have done shady shit in the past, nobody would bat an eyelash. For some reason, when its Nintendo, who has also done shady shit in the past, certain people just refuse to believe it, that there is no way Nintendo would ever do anything to manipulate the market or sales in their favor.
LordRaptor
Member
No, that's bullshit and an attempt to derail questioning this 'truth that everybody knows'.
Anyone selling any product that is highly seasonal that cannot meet demand in time to meet those seasonal sales, I would question on what basis that claim is being made.
Is there some huge sales boost expected on December 26th they can swoop in and meet? Of course there fucking isn't.
e:
Because literally nobody in this topic can explain what the benefit to Nintendo doing this with this product is.
Jim Sterlings conclusion is "to piss off retail workers" which - sorry - I don't find remotely plausible as a reasoning.
You are claiming its to "manipulate the market and sales in their favour" - how? How does not selling product do that?
It remains to be seen if demand for the NES classic is purely seasonal, I doubt that it is as when the thing was announced, and the preorder runs at Bestbuy, Target and TRU that sold out were done over the summer. Initial Wii sales were certainly spiked during the holidays, but that demand sustained over the course of the year. While I don't expect the NES classic to have the same tail, I expect demand to be high through at least May and Nintendo to continue to trickle out the product, especially during the Switch launch.
and as far as this question goes: You are claiming its to "manipulate the market and sales in their favour" - how? How does not selling product do that?
The formula is simple. By having smaller inventory to ship, Nintendo ensure that said inventory is sold, and future inventory is sold because demand is still not met. And because they have control over a in demand product, they are in a position of power when it comes to retail space.
This HAS BEEN DOCUMENTED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Not by fanboys or armchair game industry exports, but by authors that did research and interviewed people involved. Simply stating that it just doesn't make sense doesn't mean it didn't happen because it totally fucking did. Believe whatever you want if it makes you uncomfortable to believe that Nintendo wants your money, because Nintendo wants your money and will use whatever advantage it can to get your money. So will Sony and MS and every other fucking company on the planet. They are not your friends.
LordRaptor
Member
Right.
So; please explain how this makes money, not how it results in lost sales.
"THIS HAS HAPPENED BEFORE WITH OTHER PRODUCTS ALLCAPS ONEELEVEN" is not an explanation
If a hot toy manfacturer restricts, say product A in a series, but has plenty of product B, C and D, then okay, there might plausibly be an uptick of B,C and D as substitute goods.
That is not the case here.
If there is a giant shipment , say, next week, then a tiny initial shipment to 'whet appetities' before opening the floodgates might plausibly benefit overall sales.
That is not the case here.
If there was a second huge seasonal sales event shortly after christmas, where all the missed sales that have occurred can be met and then some, there might be a plausible reason for this to happen.
That is not the case here.
If there was a second much more expensive SKU that is functionally similar but has higher margins, so restricted supplies of the cheaper less profitable SKU to force people into buying the higher margin SKU might plausibly result in this.
That is not the case here.
So instead of condescendingly dismissing these questions by talking about fanboys and how corporations only exist to make money - explain how they fuck they are making money by doing this.
Nah Pre-ordering is always bad.... always
You seem to be refusing to accept the existence of basic marketing concepts. Nobody is going to provide you with enough smoking-gun evidence of subtle multi-layered ones to meet your approval.
There isn't any smoking gun. Many people saw the obvious nostalgia-mining potential in the NES Mini. Nintendo apparently didn't? Nintendo apparently didn't want to gauge demand, seeing as they didn't open up for preorders? And there are a multitude of scenarios where willfully underselling the NES Mini could be of advantage to Nintendo, some of which are proven or suspected to have been employed by Nintendo's highly-paid and highly-skilled marketing division in the past (which, by the way, has occasionally failed due to making the wrong move).
Sorry, I still don't buy that Nintendo needs attention more than they need money, especially considering how poorly the Wii U went.
They may be conservative about how much they manufacture because (1) it's Nintendo and they're conservative about everything and (2) their last two hardware launches did not go well. Both the 3DS and Wii U undersold after the initial launch window, and while they were able to turn the 3DS around eventually (with the help of a swift price cut they "apologized" for with the Ambassador program), Wii U units just sat on shelves forever.
They may be conservative about how much they manufacture because (1) it's Nintendo and they're conservative about everything and (2) their last two hardware launches did not go well. Both the 3DS and Wii U undersold after the initial launch window, and while they were able to turn the 3DS around eventually (with the help of a swift price cut they "apologized" for with the Ambassador program), Wii U units just sat on shelves forever.
LordRaptor
Member
The basic principle of marketing is to sell product.
If there is not enough product to sell, it doesn't actually fucking matter what kind of marketing there is.
Again; stop telling me how OBVIOUS this thing that is OBVIOUS is - explain how not having enough product to sell when people want to buy that product is beneficial for the company that wants to sell product.
There's no "smoking gun". There's no smoke. There's no goddamn gun!
1) Make product
2) Make people want product
3) Don't have enough product for people to buy
4) ???
5) Profit
What exactly does step 4 consist of?
e:
So let's not make this Nintendo.
Sony release a PS1 Mini, a roku sized box that comes preinstalled with 30 games for $60.
It becomes this years hot christmas gift.
How do Sony benefit not having enough on shelves to sell before christmas?
JoshuaJSlone
Member
Some people will say it's "Trick these people into buying your next product right away." But I guess since they'll be forced to undership that too they'll never get the sale.
How do you make a product already in demand receive even more demand by under shipping stock?
Doesn't it sound like artificial scarcity would work better for products no one gives two shits about?
Why didn't they do this for Pokémon Sun and Moon? They shipped 10 million worldwide and have only sold 7.5 million.
Does anyone have an idea of how you sell even more than that 10 million shipment by using artificial scarcity to create more demand for a product that was already in demand?
Can this demand be met without causing people to go to scalpers? Do you have methods to make sure money doesn't go in the hands of scalpers so that you can meet the demand of consumers through artificial scarcity?
Can this demand be met using artificial scarcity without causing the consumer to change their mind and not buy the product because of having to wait for stock to ship?
The point is how do you get more sales without losing sales?
Doesn't it sound like artificial scarcity would work better for products no one gives two shits about?
Why didn't they do this for Pokémon Sun and Moon? They shipped 10 million worldwide and have only sold 7.5 million.
Does anyone have an idea of how you sell even more than that 10 million shipment by using artificial scarcity to create more demand for a product that was already in demand?
Can this demand be met without causing people to go to scalpers? Do you have methods to make sure money doesn't go in the hands of scalpers so that you can meet the demand of consumers through artificial scarcity?
Can this demand be met using artificial scarcity without causing the consumer to change their mind and not buy the product because of having to wait for stock to ship?
The point is how do you get more sales without losing sales?
Fine, I'll respond to some of your earlier belligerence.
Seriously, I saw a video recently "shooting down" the conspiracy theory that Nintendo was trying to drive amiibo sales by making print runs that slightly misrepresented actual demand (oh really, you missed out on Marth because we thought he was unpopular? Well I guess that's why you should line up outside Target one hour earlier than the next guy), and the video mocked the conspiracy theory of 1980's NES games, and here we have quotes in this thread with Peter Main laughing about how easy it was to play people like chumps.
Wii fulfilled a lot of demand for Nintendo product. Nintendo pushed Wii U hard from the beginning and that backfired because demand wasn't there, but in the last years of Wii U's life Nintendo was still pushing Wii U. If Nintendo was so burned and gun-shy because of Wii U, where were the Wii U shortages? Wii U's third year sold almost 50% better than it's second year.
Nintendo needs Switch to get some attention way more than they need NES Mini to earn them some pocket change.
Wii U or 3DS?
Nice crystal ball you have there. I also like how the benefit needs to be "giant" to even be "plausible".
Nice crystal ball you have there.
Switch?
Seriously, I saw a video recently "shooting down" the conspiracy theory that Nintendo was trying to drive amiibo sales by making print runs that slightly misrepresented actual demand (oh really, you missed out on Marth because we thought he was unpopular? Well I guess that's why you should line up outside Target one hour earlier than the next guy), and the video mocked the conspiracy theory of 1980's NES games, and here we have quotes in this thread with Peter Main laughing about how easy it was to play people like chumps.
Wii fulfilled a lot of demand for Nintendo product. Nintendo pushed Wii U hard from the beginning and that backfired because demand wasn't there, but in the last years of Wii U's life Nintendo was still pushing Wii U. If Nintendo was so burned and gun-shy because of Wii U, where were the Wii U shortages? Wii U's third year sold almost 50% better than it's second year.
Nintendo needs Switch to get some attention way more than they need NES Mini to earn them some pocket change.
My best friend has held positions as a buyer in a large high fashion retailer and as a merchant in a staple well-established garment manufacturer. I talked to them about this and they think it is just retailer stupidity since they likely underestimated demand in a huge way and placed small orders, which led to a small manufacturing run. I'm speaking with second hand information, so don't quote me on this or treat it as authoritative, etc. (I.e. take it with a grain of salt).
According to him, the limited supply to create interest works with sales of actual limited supply of well known goods (e.g., gucci handbags) and as a lie for goods where there is actually a big supply (like every infomercial good ever). Sometimes, they will stagger supply to allow for sustained sales say over black Friday and cyber Monday where they sell out of a good on Friday but are holding some in the back for Monday. Limited supply is also crucial for high end luxury fashion where the limited supply is what creates the bulk of the demand for the good.
While I've disagreed with LordRaptor on a number of topics in the past, I think he is completely right here because this Nintendo system doesn't fall into any of those categories.
According to him, the limited supply to create interest works with sales of actual limited supply of well known goods (e.g., gucci handbags) and as a lie for goods where there is actually a big supply (like every infomercial good ever). Sometimes, they will stagger supply to allow for sustained sales say over black Friday and cyber Monday where they sell out of a good on Friday but are holding some in the back for Monday. Limited supply is also crucial for high end luxury fashion where the limited supply is what creates the bulk of the demand for the good.
While I've disagreed with LordRaptor on a number of topics in the past, I think he is completely right here because this Nintendo system doesn't fall into any of those categories.
Regarding the Marth Amiibo, no data model on Earth would tell you something that looks like this:
would end up being in high demand.
That can't be real! Right?
Its been explained and you keep ignoring it. Nintendo sustains demand for product longer and increases rate of inventory sold by maintaining the item's perceived scarcity. It becomes harder for the average person to turn down if they are guaranteed if or when they will get another chance down the line.
If Nintendo channel stuffs the NES classic in all retailers, shoppers see they are in abundant supply, those that don't need it immediately can wait, not to mention the psychological allure of getting that hard to find item. Maybe then retailers aren't as sure about the ability to move large amounts of Nintendo product, maybe they don't need to order so much. Maybe they'll tell the Nintendo rep that the Switch only gets 3 shelves instead of the normal 6.
Instead, Nintendo trickles in supply that sells immediately, retailers have angry customers that want the product now. Those same customers that could have passed on the NES classic in the earlier scenario, now they don't. They buy it immediately. Maybe they get an extra one for a friend they knew who wanted one.
I think the issue here is you are underselling the whole psychology aspect of marketing and selling an in demand item. You may think if Nintendo ships 1 million today vs 1 million in bits and pieces over the next few months, then 59.99 x 1 million is the same. But what I'm saying is if that 1 million is available from jump, then its easier to say no for the average customer, whereas if that same 1 million trickles in and everyone wants it, then there is a greater chance you have next to NO unsold inventory, no returns, no credits, and your retail partners are less likely to relegate the next big thing to the back corner so you have better negotiating. While it may sound crazy to you. its not, they've done it many times before.
The question is are they doing it here. I think so. Not because they are evil (this isn't about good and evil) this is about demand, brand awareness, remember how awesome Nintendo was back in the day, and oh btw check out this new thing they have coming out. It'll blow the doors off the NES days, even the Wii. Where some people think its logistical incompetence, I think its marketing genius. If your looking for a smoking gun in that regard, you're going to have to find a Nintendo exec come out and state that they limited the production on the item, and if that ever happens, it will be years down the line like the NES days.
EDIT: BTW LordRaptor, I'm sorry if I came off as hostile in my previous reply, I'm not trying to make enemies over something as silly as this. Some of us think Nintendo is limiting supply of the NES Classic to sustain demand and raise brand awareness, some of us do not. And unless a 3rd party comes out to substantiate one way or another, we'll never ever know and the sun will still come up the next day.
Couple this with the question I said earlier and it looks less like artificial scarcity and more that retailers ordered very little units. As said, Pokémon X/Y and OR/AS are big sellers that sold around 15 million each LTD, so retailers ordered a lot for Sun and Moon because they felt assured by past sales that this would sell well.
With the NES Mini Classic, the only reference point they had were plug n' play consoles that played like Sega Genesis games. So they ordered very little.
By that same token, retailers ordered a lot of Animal Crossing Amiibo expecting sales similar to Smash Bros. Amiibo but we know that didn't work out the same way and Nintendo doesn't guarantee retailer protection so those Amiibos were put on clearance making the retailers lose money as opposed to Nintendo losing money.
I saw that people referenced past events where Nintendo were doing underhanded practices that put them in court 20+ years ago but can we really ascribe those practices as something Nintendo still benefits from today when the world is vastly different? They do not have majority market share and their competitors are multi-billion dollar conglomerates whom have the money to outdo Nintendo in securing advertising and shelf space.
AntraxSuicide
Banned
It seems you're suspicious of the practice of artificial scarcity in general. It's totally fine to think that Nintendo isn't doing this on their own right here (which is true of any company), but the practice of making a smaller number of products than you can sell is well-documented (e.g. the Disney Vault being a famous example).
The idea is to elevate your brand's value. A car made by Bugatti is valuable not just because it's made with high-end parts, but because each run of them is limited. The idea is to drive up demand for your brand, not just product A (I think you used this terminology in a different post). The idea isn't to have products B,C, and D waiting to be sold at the same time, the idea is to drive up the demand for product A2 in another year or so.
Think about the overall value and market position of Nintendo. People mention a lot as a pipe dream that Sony or MS should buy them out, but it's too expensive because of the value of the Nintendo brand. That value is all in theory though! It's based on the idea that Nintendo could sell Mario, Zelda, Metroid, Donkey Kong, etc... products in a variety of markets (clothes, movies, games, toys, etc...) and that such IP are worth way more than they've ever actually generated.
When you do this artificial scarcity thing, the idea to drive up that intangible brand value. You want to let the market know that when you release a product, it's going to be exclusive, highly sought out, and eventually sold out. Every. Single. Time. If Nintendo were using artificial scarcity here (which again, I don't think they are, but the tactic has a purpose) it would be to get people thinking "Nintendo products sell out fast" so that when they release the N64+ (for instance) it gets sold out in half an hour, which is bankable and then drives up sales of the next thing they put out.
I don't think this is what they're doing (the far more likely explanation for them is that they're incompetent and don't know how to measure demand well), but the practice of artificial scarcity is very real. For examples, I mentioned the Disney Vault, but there's also luxury clothes and toys, which prioritize brand value and guaranteed sales over larger immediate sales.
Everytime someone says something like this, they reveal how little they know about any of this. Nintendo does not stock shelves.
Skittzo0413
Member
I don't think it's accurate to say they're incompetent at projecting sales, more that they're just overly conservative in their projections.
Say they are projecting 2 million sales of the NES/Famicom classic this year (number pulled completely out of my ass). Nintendo seemingly would rather lowball that number and produce, say, 1.5 million units so as to minimize the risk of overproduction. For a company the size of Nintendo, they really can't afford to constantly overproduce as it heavily eats into their profits (buybacks, storage, etc.). Sony and MS don't have these problems because they are much bigger than just their gaming divisions.
Simply put, it appears that Nintendo would rather earn less revenue than risk having to pay more.
Now, a side effect of this conservative production may be that Nintendo products and brands have a somehow higher intrinsic value, but I seriously doubt this is the driving force behind their production strategy.
Say they are projecting 2 million sales of the NES/Famicom classic this year (number pulled completely out of my ass). Nintendo seemingly would rather lowball that number and produce, say, 1.5 million units so as to minimize the risk of overproduction. For a company the size of Nintendo, they really can't afford to constantly overproduce as it heavily eats into their profits (buybacks, storage, etc.). Sony and MS don't have these problems because they are much bigger than just their gaming divisions.
Simply put, it appears that Nintendo would rather earn less revenue than risk having to pay more.
Now, a side effect of this conservative production may be that Nintendo products and brands have a somehow higher intrinsic value, but I seriously doubt this is the driving force behind their production strategy.
AntraxSuicide
Banned
The salesman is responsible for people not ordering their product. If Nintendo took accurate measures of demand, then they should be able to reasonably sell retailers on larger orders.
So yes, Nintendo isn't GameStop. But they also aren't FedEx; they do more than just mail shit to stores.
Nintendo could literally fill a warehouse and it wouldn't matter if the stores don't want it. I'm willing to bet the buyers knew about the mini well ahead of time and signaled they were cool on it, which led to a smaller production. Nintendo's "research" mean nothing when the buyers research could say otherwise.
It's why first run amiibos were so short stocked. I remember the threads of people saying Nintendo was too late to the party, that Activision and Disney has already eaten their lunch. After launch, Nintendo were fools for thinking it would fail.
Christmas time with a new medium in VR, especially PSVR, a new ps4 slim, the Xbox 1 S, and the ps4 pro, but let's waste space on a $60 novelty box.
AntraxSuicide
Banned
Buyers' research should be no different than Nintendo's if both are doing competent research. If the buyers' research sucks, then show them yours and make your case (which is quite literally the whole point of selling them your product).
And threads aren't exactly good places for market research. If Nintendo used such poor measures, then that would certainly be incompetence. Good research would've done a better job of estimating sales of their products.
BudokaiMR2
Member
I'm honestly amazed this thread is still going.
This just isn't how things work. Even if it is incompetence there is a high possibility it is on the side of the retailers and buyers.
Nintendo doesn't walk into a meeting with buyers at Best Buy and tell them how many they are shipping. The retailers place orders and the manufacturer will then scale production in order to match their demands. I haven't worked for Nintendo or on any hardware products but this is drawn from my experience shipping games.
This just isn't how things work. Even if it is incompetence there is a high possibility it is on the side of the retailers and buyers.
Nintendo doesn't walk into a meeting with buyers at Best Buy and tell them how many they are shipping. The retailers place orders and the manufacturer will then scale production in order to match their demands. I haven't worked for Nintendo or on any hardware products but this is drawn from my experience shipping games.
You missed my last edit where I point out that a $60 novelty box is the last thing the buyers are thinking about stocking a lot of, especially when they're still dealing with overstocked Amiibos. Good research would point out that it's an emulator box that the wii/wii u already gut in terms of sales potential. That the "hard core" would usually laugh at being asked to buy an emulator, and that this might get millennials and parents not into tech to spend a little money.
I would say this thread is a sign of business done well, not incompetence, when they got the people they weren't targeting to crave their product. Let's be honest, if this was on pre order none of the people they actually were trying to target, fresh blood, wouldn't have ever been able to get a system. And this thread would still exist, but some anger would be towards scalpers.
If it's on retailers and buyers then why are they saying they got less than they ordered?
AntraxSuicide
Banned
Correct. Instead is that, if Nintendo is doing what every other company does that ships to retailers instead of directly to consumers, they go to buyers at Best Buy, show them market studies they've done that will show how many units they can sell, and then put a dollar amount on what each party will make.
It's the mark of bad salesmanship to blame other things for failure to sell more products than you wanted to. If Nintendo wanted to sell more of these (and I think they do, I don't think they're artificially limiting stock), then they should actually, you know, be salesmen and push their product.
Stockholders aren't happy when companies tell them, "Gee, we wanted to sell more of our product, but people just wanted our competition more. Shucks."
And no, good research would not show that. Good research would be relatively accurate to the sales of the product. What you've described here is not research, but punditry. It's reading tea leaves from armchair business people instead of just using a firm that uses actual studies to measure a product's demand and eventual sales. Forecasting in business is not based on people sitting around coming up with heuristics like "I bet people won't buy emulators because the hard core crowd won't like it." Forecasting means actually studying whether people will buy the product.
Adam Tyner
Member
Since there have been reports of retailers being massively shorted on orders, that would seem to not be the case.
Source?
Wouldn't saying otherwise indicate that they are idiots? Why take the fall and admit you don't know your customer?
jabberwocker
Banned
Course I watched it. This reads that you're trying to defend the maker of the video.
Let's go with conspiracy theories abound. There's a shortage of shit all the time. Let's not get overblown on what really is, a gadget that plays games that are 30 years old. It's not like nobody has had access to them ever.