Scalping is discouraged on this forum, and so shouldn't all pro scalping posts also b

[Voorhees27]

Scalping as in what Myers did in Halloween 2 or scalping as in charging too damn much like that damn TheTerminator prick use to do?

 

[Something Sexy]

Scalping as in what Myers did in Halloween 2 or scalping as in charging too damn much like that damn TheTerminator prick use to do?

That is why he was called TheTerminator because he terminated your savings.

 

[karamazov80]

Scalping as in what Myers did in Halloween 2 or scalping as in charging too damn much like that damn TheTerminator prick use to do?

That guy was a real jerk. Made that Howes guy look like Santa Claus or Ghandi. Good riddance.

 

[316what]

judas priest, this thread isn't makin much sense anymore

It is impossible for it to make sense when:
A) BT1 makes stuff up as he goes
B) BT1 continually contradicts himself
C) BT1's replies are in the form of a Novella

 

[hairlesswookiee]

It is impossible for it to make sense when:
A) BT1 makes stuff up as he goes
B) BT1 continually contradicts himself

Also add C) Lose interest after the first two paragraphs of his response.

 

[316what]

First question: if they are part of the Sideshow company, or are Sideshow dealer, than yes.

Ok, so first you say only those involved in the creative process should be allowed to profit. Now as long as they're a dealer they are allowed to profit also...even though they ARE NOT involved in the creative process.

Please decide which argument you want to use and stick to it.

Second question: Not everyone is entitled to sell anything they feel like for profit. Some things are illegal, like crack, and some things are unethical to sell in a certain manner or by certain people, while they are ethical to be sold by others. Concert tickets and limited edition collectibles are ethical to be sold by authorized dealers, but not by scalpers.

If it is illegal to sell, then it's true people are not entitled to sell an item. But if it is legal for them to sell it, then they have every right to sell it...whether it be at a profit or loss. Ethics has no bearing on the matter. Reselling a collectible for profit does not fall into the legal definition of Ethics Violations...Ethics Violations ARE punishable by law.

Question three: You didn't get my point. The most direct and simple motivations to buy something are always to obtain that particular thing for it's own sake, WITHOUT ULTERIOR MOTIVE, or hidden agenda. To buy a collectible to scalp is an ulterior motive, and to but a collectible to sell for food clothing or shelter is ALSO an ulterior motive, even though those other needs are the most basis needs for BEING HUMAN, they are NOT the most DIRECT and simple motivations for buying a collectible, or for buying anything else for that matter. This is true unless something is bought for the most direct and simple motivation to obtain food clothing or shelter ONLY when one is buying food clothing or shelter. It is a direct and simple motivation to buy food only when the purpose is to buy food, and not to buy it for the purpose of selling it so that one might obtain clothing or shelter. It is a direct and simple motivation to buy shelter for the purpose of having shelter, and not for the purpose of buying shelter to sell it in order to be able to obtain food or clothing. It is a direct and simple motivation to buy clothing only when the purpose is to obtain clothing, and not to buy it to sell to be able to obtain food or shelter, or anything else for that matter.
It is clear that you misunderstood.

I didn't get your point because you were not very clear about the point you were attempting to make. My reply was dead on in regards to the face value of your weakly explained point. However, I DID NOT misunderstand...YOU just weren't clear and didn't articulate the original point well enough.

NEXT.

 

[Voorhees27]

That is why he was called TheTerminator because he terminated your savings.

That guy was a real jerk. Made that Howes guy look like Santa Claus or Ghandi. Good riddance.

 

[SnakeDoctor]

exactly, and why on earth would a manufacturer or retailer accept the unnecessary risk just to end scalping? its not a valid recommendation to solve the problem.

a more valid recommendation would be to increase supply. but ssc actually receives a certain notarity if its seen that their products are scalped. it makes it look like SSC is highly in demand when in reality maybe if they are lucky 1/50 of their products get hot. ssc is more than willing to risk underproducing 1 item now and then if it means people start ordering the 49 other products thinking its the next hot item.

I never said they would accept that risk. They won't. I said it is the only way to eliminate scalping, and if the industry were really committed to doing so, they could -- by eliminating profitability. Where there is profit to be made, there will be an entreprenuer to make it.

Manufacturers and retailers don't care, and neither should you.

SnakeDoc

 

[316what]

I never said they would accept that risk. They won't. I said it is the only way to eliminate scalping, and if the industry were really committed to doing so, they could -- by eliminating profitability. Where there is profit to be made, there will be an entreprenuer to make it.

Manufacturers and retailers don't care, and neither should you.

SnakeDoc

This scenario would also eliminate profitability for manufacturers.

 

[ProgMatinee]

This scenario would also eliminate profitability for manufacturers.

yep it would be stupid to do that.

the smarter thought from manufacturers would be "if customers that missed our preorder are willing to buy the item 2nd hand we should have made extra to meet that demand"...not "we should risk alienating customers by raising prices". Economics of scale, the more items SSC makes the more profitable. As long as they don't undercut themselves by overproducing.

 

[karamazov80]

So Prog, you are suggesting that Sideshow should always produce however many items they are sure that they could sell? That might make sense in most industries, but these are collectibles we are talking about. Not dishwater detergent or bread. Lots of folks buy things, in some measure, because they are not in limitless supply. Their intrinsic scarcity makes them valuable in the eyes of some (not just because a limited supply means that demand will not be met, but because people like owning something that not everyone else will own).

If Sideshow got the reputation of re-releasing items, for instance, in order to meet demand (which they sort of do anyway, with all the "2nd chance" business), it would turn some people off. It would make their items seem less "hot" as you say. Fewer people would clamor for pre-orders. Knowing that the secondary market prices would stay at retail level or go down, people might just keep waiting and waiting and never actually bite the bullet at all, because a lot of buying of Sideshow merchandise is a function of hype and uncertainty. People figure they better order now, or they may regret it later, etc.

In any case, I agree with SnakeDoctor in that I'm sure Sideshow doesn't care too much about scalping. They know it is going to happen from time to time, and it probably does benefit them in perpetuating the idea that people need to buy from them early and often.

 

[LOTRFan]

They wouldn't be collectibles that's for sure, they might as well be bread.

 

[Deak Starkiller]

They wouldn't be collectibles that's for sure, they might as well be bread.

Right. I just want to know how to get the "My Little Pwny" title on MW2!

 

[ProgMatinee]

i'm not really saying what SSC should do because I know their philosophy is not in line with mine. And i agree with all you said kaamazov. I have 100% confidence that SSC knows what they are doing with every move they make.

if i owned a company i know it would be closer to the major toy industry model which run right makes $100s millions if not billions vs single digit millions that SSC does.

 

[Something Sexy]

i'm not really saying what SSC should do because I know their philosophy is not in line with mine.

if i owned a company i know it would be closer to the major toy industry model which run right makes $100s millions vs single digit millions.

I have 100% confidence that SSC knows what they are doing with every move they make.

I wouldn't say every move because they have made some questionable ones. No one knows what they are doing with everything they just make the best guesses they can with what they have and hope it works out in the end.

 

[karamazov80]

They play the odds. Not every move is gonna be a home run, but some will do better than they plan, I'm sure, and on average they have a pretty good idea who their audience is and what they want.

 

[Something Sexy]

They play the odds. Not every move is gonna be a home run, but some will do better than they plan, I'm sure, and on average they have a pretty good idea who their audience is and what they want.

I would think so since they are still in business and SEEM to be profitable.

 

[ProgMatinee]

i'm not saying SSC makes the right decision. I'm saying they know what they are doing. They have their plan and stick to it.

If SSC was owned by stockholders you could bet your mortgage that the Disney PF line would be marketed big time. They would have deals to sell these in Southwest airline catalogs and Disney shops and every little shop at Disneyworld. When you're able to sell 100,000 units to people that just want a quality product (and could care less about ed. sizes) because you're able to reach that many do you care that the 1500 people that you otherwise would have capped yourself at are complaining?

 

[Blackthornone]

lol at people who try to justify there own inability to land pieces.

I've been successful at every PPO and every newsletter in over a year except the Galactus bust, and I didn't get White Elektra, but that was different. I even had an order of the bronze Balrog dio, es of 50, but I decided I didn't like it, and it was wrong to scalp. As I said before, I would even be willing to help out a fellow freak and order something for them if I wasn't getting one for me. Alas, I might have to cancel my Circle Is Now Complete Dio....

 

[Blackthornone]

Good grief. Are there really special ethical considerations for "concert tickets" and "limited edition collectibles"? Why are those two catergories deserving of special ethical rules? Ethical rules require consistency of application. You're making this BS up as you go.

Private property -- live it, learn it, love it. Provided it isn't legally restricted ... if I own it, I can sell it whenever, and to whomever, I want. The ethics of freedom of property. Mind your own business.

Like I've said, there is but one solution to scalping -- raise prices at retail to the maximum price the market will take. Until retail prices reflect the reality of supply and demand, "scalping" is inevitable. The reality to the consumer is the same ... you're likely going to pay market price.

SnakeDoc

Those were just two examples I thought up. I didn't intend to imply they were exceptions. However, they are similar in that they are limited edition. I have the same attitude about people to buy limited edition cars to scalp as well. No exceptions.

These SS items are way overpriced as it is compared to real world values, about 3X as much as they should cost. The only reason why they are so expensive is because the number is limited.