Topps laughing at costumers?

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by pewe

My best attempt at synthesis: “seems shady that Panini is letting distributors earn so much, while Panini gets paid so little.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The more accurate synopsis is "I don't understand the reasons why Panini would wholesale to distributers below market price so it must be corruption."

Sent from my SM-A505U using Tapatalk

[Bosoxfan5990]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

The more accurate synopsis is "I don't understand the reasons why Panini would wholesale to distributers below market price so it must be corruption."

Sent from my SM-A505U using Tapatalk

Dumb AND/OR corrupt.

[mossoholic]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Because we understand business and you are shooting from the hip based on very little knowledge but tons of inaccurate assumptions.


Sent from my SM-A505U using Tapatalk

What are my inaccurate assumptions? I can’t wait to hear again how my statements about the sports card industry are not true based on your knowledge about how you used to sell electronic cables several years ago. Because everyone knows that has so much to do with what has happened in the hobby over the last 3 years. Just because you know or think you know more about any other industry on earth doesn’t mean you know more about the sports card industry. There has been no other business like it the last 3 years. The prices, sales, offer history is out there for anyone that wants to do the research.

[mossoholic]

Originally Posted by Pacmeyer

Does it even matter which party gets to inflate wax prices? Either way the consumer pays through the nose.

Consumers pay more with the current method Panini uses. If Panini decided to just raise prices for distributors and nothing else yes most likely nothing would change for you. But there is a chance if direct buyers get charged very high amounts at some point they feel the need to try and move product. Now they can charge whatever they want because prices are so low they can’t lose. They don’t need to you know actually distribute product.

If Panini decided to sell all hobby on their own wax prices overall would be lower for you. There are a few different options they could go. The first being auctions. Panini gets more money than they do now and you can get wax at the actual market value. That number will probably always be less than the bums are charging now. Panini uses a set price they think they can sell it all at immediately. Again way more than distributors pay them now but cost for consumer is going to be lower. Some type of subscription service. Panini charges higher prices but still lower than you’ll pay a current money tree member for new wax.

The current system Panini uses they realistically make as little as they possibly can. The small select group of direct money tree members get all the big profits. Breakers win. Everyone else loses. Virtually any other method of selling hobby product Panini makes not only more but way more. Consumers get lower prices. Breakers win. Money tree members still win but have to go back to making reasonable margins of profit.

[Pacmeyer]

Originally Posted by mossoholic

If Panini decided to sell all hobby on their own wax prices overall would be lower for you. There are a few different options they could go. The first being auctions. Panini gets more money than they do now and you can get wax at the actual market value. That number will probably always be less than the bums are charging now. Panini uses a set price they think they can sell it all at immediately. Again way more than distributors pay them now but cost for consumer is going to be lower. Some type of subscription service. Panini charges higher prices but still lower than you’ll pay a current money tree member for new wax.

Unfortunately these alternatives you suggested are increasingly moot as Panini gets closer to losing its licensing. Would any company leaders even care at this point to change a thing?

If the execs at Topps and Panini had gotten off their backsides once the pandemic boom began, it wouldn't have been so incredibly easy for Fanatics to swoop right in. What's even more ridiculous than this "money tree" pricing? People expecting that a monopoly will co-opt breakers, eliminate distributors, and squeeze LCS all while passing on the savings to consumers.

[ewokpelts]

Originally Posted by fabiani12333

I never said Panini was forced into bad deals. I think they signed reasonable deals prior to the pandemic. They allowed distributors to buy at prices with built-in profit margins. Then the pandemic hit and profit margins soared for distributors and online dealers/semi-distributors like BO.

Just before the pandemic, BO partnered with a private equity firm to form a wax fund, which bought up BO inventory as an investment. The fund was to last for 5 years, but it closed much earlier because it got a huge return of over 250%.

Regarding the leverage Panini had in negotiations with distributors, I think Topps would have had much more leverage. Not just because Topps had existed for way longer than Panini, but because Topps had the baseball license and a stable of successful and established products and brands. They had a relatively large base of consumers. Baseball cards have traditionally been the most popular sports cards for collectors and hobbyists. Panini's products and brands were new and unproven. They didn't have the track record or loyal costumer base of Topps.

Pre-pandemic, these distributors existed mostly as an extension of the card companies themselves. There was a certain back and forth between the big four(later three) and the distributors. And prices weren’t stupid and allocations weren’t as big of a deal aside from topps series one(for the first week or two) and high dollar/low production releases.

Then the world went on fire and these guys started gouging everyone.

[ewokpelts]

Originally Posted by fabiani12333

I never said Panini was forced into bad deals. I think they signed reasonable deals prior to the pandemic. They allowed distributors to buy at prices with built-in profit margins. Then the pandemic hit and profit margins soared for distributors and online dealers/semi-distributors like BO.

Just before the pandemic, BO partnered with a private equity firm to form a wax fund, which bought up BO inventory as an investment. The fund was to last for 5 years, but it closed much earlier because it got a huge return of over 250%.

Regarding the leverage Panini had in negotiations with distributors, I think Topps would have had much more leverage. Not just because Topps had existed for way longer than Panini, but because Topps had the baseball license and a stable of successful and established products and brands. They had a relatively large base of consumers. Baseball cards have traditionally been the most popular sports cards for collectors and hobbyists. Panini's products and brands were new and unproven. They didn't have the track record or loyal costumer base of Topps.

People also forget that panini, unlike topps, wanted direct accounts to buy EVERYTHING. So a lot of direct accounts just bought from distributors as carrying a full line was risky. Remember, at one point panini had the nba, nfl, AND the nhl(when upper deck shared hockey with panini) PLUS soccer.
Flash forward to 2020, and panini was very selective of who they allow as direct accounts. It’s almost as if if you have a topps HTA, you won’t get a panini account.

[ewokpelts]

Originally Posted by mossoholic

Consumers pay more with the current method Panini uses. If Panini decided to just raise prices for distributors and nothing else yes most likely nothing would change for you. But there is a chance if direct buyers get charged very high amounts at some point they feel the need to try and move product. Now they can charge whatever they want because prices are so low they can’t lose. They don’t need to you know actually distribute product.

If Panini decided to sell all hobby on their own wax prices overall would be lower for you. There are a few different options they could go. The first being auctions. Panini gets more money than they do now and you can get wax at the actual market value. That number will probably always be less than the bums are charging now. Panini uses a set price they think they can sell it all at immediately. Again way more than distributors pay them now but cost for consumer is going to be lower. Some type of subscription service. Panini charges higher prices but still lower than you’ll pay a current money tree member for new wax.

The current system Panini uses they realistically make as little as they possibly can. The small select group of direct money tree members get all the big profits. Breakers win. Everyone else loses. Virtually any other method of selling hobby product Panini makes not only more but way more. Consumers get lower prices. Breakers win. Money tree members still win but have to go back to making reasonable margins of profit.

Are you dumb?

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by mossoholic

What are my inaccurate assumptions? I can’t wait to hear again how my statements about the sports card industry are not true based on your knowledge about how you used to sell electronic cables several years ago. Because everyone knows that has so much to do with what has happened in the hobby over the last 3 years. Just because you know or think you know more about any other industry on earth doesn’t mean you know more about the sports card industry. There has been no other business like it the last 3 years. The prices, sales, offer history is out there for anyone that wants to do the research.

I used that as one example. Don't fixate on it. You can substitute literally any other product with the same result. As a lawyer, I've been involved in the business planning of dozens of industries. Pick one.

As for inaccurate assumptions, you assume the card industry is so unique that the business principles that apply to every other industry don't apply to cards. You assume these differences mean the cause is corruption.

Your problem is you come up with arguments to lead to your conclusion instead of drawing your conclusion from the logical arguments. You want your money tree conspiracy to be correct so you formulate ridiculous theories about how the card industry is a unicorn to try to justify your belief. Reality is there is nothing new under the sun. There is nothing unique about the card industry that hasn't existed in any other industry before. Markets have seen it all. And completely changing your business model to react to a temporary situation like the covid boom is not evidence of corruption. It's sound business strategy.

Sent from my SM-A505U using Tapatalk

[ewokpelts]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

I used that as one example. Don't fixate on it. You can substitute literally any other product with the same result. As a lawyer, I've been involved in the business planning of dozens of industries. Pick one.

As for inaccurate assumptions, you assume the card industry is so unique that the business principles that apply to every other industry don't apply to cards. You assume these differences mean the cause is corruption.

Your problem is you come up with arguments to lead to your conclusion instead of drawing your conclusion from the logical arguments. You want your money tree conspiracy to be correct so you formulate ridiculous theories about how the card industry is a unicorn to try to justify your belief. Reality is there is nothing new under the sun. There is nothing unique about the card industry that hasn't existed in any other industry before. Markets have seen it all. And completely changing your business model to react to a temporary situation like the covid boom is not evidence of corruption. It's sound business strategy.

Sent from my SM-A505U using Tapatalk

In short, opportunism is not corruption.

[oldgoldy97]

What does Moss do for a profession that would give all this insight and provide legitimacy to his claims?

[ewokpelts]

Originally Posted by oldgoldy97

What does Moss do for a profession that would give all this insight and provide legitimacy to his claims?

He makes fries at Burger King.

[MiamiMarlinsFan]

Originally Posted by oldgoldy97

What does Moss do for a profession that would give all this insight and provide legitimacy to his claims?

What does he do for a living that he has the frikkin time to write those long posts?! That’s what I wanna know.

[Pacmeyer]

Originally Posted by MiamiMarlinsFan

What does he do for a living that he has the frikkin time to write those long posts?! That’s what I wanna know.

Being verbose is easy. A chatbot wrote this...

Allowing distributors to mark up prices is a common practice in the retail and wholesale industries. There are a few reasons why a company might choose to allow this:

Increased distribution: By allowing distributors to mark up prices, the company can expand its reach and increase the availability of its products in the market. This can lead to increased sales and revenue.

Increased profit margins: By allowing distributors to mark up prices, the company can increase its profit margins without having to raise its own prices. This can help to maintain competitiveness in the market.

Brand management: Allowing distributors to mark up prices can help the company to maintain control over its brand image and pricing strategy. This can be important for companies that want to position themselves as high-end or premium brands.

Channel management: Allowing distributors to mark up prices can also help the company to manage its distribution channels more effectively. By setting different prices for different channels, the company can target specific markets and customer segments.

Cost reduction: Allowing distributors to mark up prices can also help the company to reduce its own costs by passing on some of the responsibility for sales and marketing to the distributor.

However, it's important to keep in mind that allowing distributors to mark up prices also creates a risk of price erosion if the distributor's mark up is too high or if there is too much competition, it may also lead to customers to shop around for the best price which could affect the company's brand image and reputation.

[MiamiMarlinsFan]

Originally Posted by Pacmeyer

Being verbose is easy. A chatbot wrote this...

Allowing distributors to mark up prices is a common practice in the retail and wholesale industries. There are a few reasons why a company might choose to allow this:

Increased distribution: By allowing distributors to mark up prices, the company can expand its reach and increase the availability of its products in the market. This can lead to increased sales and revenue.

Increased profit margins: By allowing distributors to mark up prices, the company can increase its profit margins without having to raise its own prices. This can help to maintain competitiveness in the market.

Brand management: Allowing distributors to mark up prices can help the company to maintain control over its brand image and pricing strategy. This can be important for companies that want to position themselves as high-end or premium brands.

Channel management: Allowing distributors to mark up prices can also help the company to manage its distribution channels more effectively. By setting different prices for different channels, the company can target specific markets and customer segments.

Cost reduction: Allowing distributors to mark up prices can also help the company to reduce its own costs by passing on some of the responsibility for sales and marketing to the distributor.

However, it's important to keep in mind that allowing distributors to mark up prices also creates a risk of price erosion if the distributor's mark up is too high or if there is too much competition, it may also lead to customers to shop around for the best price which could affect the company's brand image and reputation.

Good point.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Pacmeyer

Being verbose is easy. A chatbot wrote this...



Allowing distributors to mark up prices is a common practice in the retail and wholesale industries. There are a few reasons why a company might choose to allow this:



Increased distribution: By allowing distributors to mark up prices, the company can expand its reach and increase the availability of its products in the market. This can lead to increased sales and revenue.



Increased profit margins: By allowing distributors to mark up prices, the company can increase its profit margins without having to raise its own prices. This can help to maintain competitiveness in the market.



Brand management: Allowing distributors to mark up prices can help the company to maintain control over its brand image and pricing strategy. This can be important for companies that want to position themselves as high-end or premium brands.



Channel management: Allowing distributors to mark up prices can also help the company to manage its distribution channels more effectively. By setting different prices for different channels, the company can target specific markets and customer segments.



Cost reduction: Allowing distributors to mark up prices can also help the company to reduce its own costs by passing on some of the responsibility for sales and marketing to the distributor.



However, it's important to keep in mind that allowing distributors to mark up prices also creates a risk of price erosion if the distributor's mark up is too high or if there is too much competition, it may also lead to customers to shop around for the best price which could affect the company's brand image and reputation.

Dang, even chatbot understands business better than mossoholic.

Sent from my SM-A505U using Tapatalk

[STLtoMN]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Dang, even chatbot understands business better than mossoholic.

Sent from my SM-A505U using Tapatalk

[mossoholic]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

I used that as one example. Don't fixate on it. You can substitute literally any other product with the same result. As a lawyer, I've been involved in the business planning of dozens of industries. Pick one.

As for inaccurate assumptions, you assume the card industry is so unique that the business principles that apply to every other industry don't apply to cards. You assume these differences mean the cause is corruption.

Your problem is you come up with arguments to lead to your conclusion instead of drawing your conclusion from the logical arguments. You want your money tree conspiracy to be correct so you formulate ridiculous theories about how the card industry is a unicorn to try to justify your belief. Reality is there is nothing new under the sun. There is nothing unique about the card industry that hasn't existed in any other industry before. Markets have seen it all. And completely changing your business model to react to a temporary situation like the covid boom is not evidence of corruption. It's sound business strategy.

Sent from my SM-A505U using Tapatalk

If you can substitute any other product for the exact same result than name 1. You have yet to name one that is in the same situation Panini has been in the last 3 years. Selling cheap always in stock items that a business sells less profit of in weeks than 1 single card box total profit clearly isn't the same result.

I said corruption and or stupidity. Funny how Panini has no problem pricing anything else they sell to somewhere around market value but the product they have been selling the most and the longest. Sealed hobby wax. No issues pricing those same boxes to normal buyers, Instant cards, Blockchain packs, rewards packs and cards, retail boxes, etc. No issues letting auctions run their course and decide the value for FOTL, Blockchain cards, online exclusive hobby. Let me know when they are now or in the future pricing the vast majority of those at 10-40% of secondary market value.

3 years for a company that hasn't been in business for even 20 years isn't temporary. A big reason prices can't go all the way back down is breakers. Most of the big ones are money tree members. Breaking has become so prevalent the last few years. It's a part of the hobby that didn't exist years ago. It didn't have huge traction until what maybe 7-8 years ago? It's picked up big time over the last 3 years. Does this mean breaking is temporary like you claim wax price are? How many breakers are there now compared to 3 years ago? Why did BO change their business model to account for high breaking costs for customers? They should have just kept it the way it was. Most likely only temporary, right? Add in the fact that Panini will lose these licenses in a few years. So it's not like they will be selling countless or maybe any basketball and football wax in a few years. Why not try and get as much money as you can now?

I'm coming up with arguments based on the actual numbers. Anyone that wants to do the research can find most of it. Check the threads here, dealernet sales and offers, MSRP prices, direct buyers cost, initial sale prices from ebay and sites that have old ebay history, current preorder prices, FOTL sell out prices, many Panini initial hobby prices on their site versus distributor cost. You act like Im making up the numbers these products are selling at. Instead of doing the research you'd rather just say Im wrong. You claim Im wrong based on your experience in other industries. None of which have had the same type of situation, at massive margins, high prices, for limited, easy to sell products that has happened with sports card wax over the last 3 years.

[mossoholic]

Originally Posted by Pacmeyer

Being verbose is easy. A chatbot wrote this...

Allowing distributors to mark up prices is a common practice in the retail and wholesale industries. There are a few reasons why a company might choose to allow this:

Increased distribution: By allowing distributors to mark up prices, the company can expand its reach and increase the availability of its products in the market. This can lead to increased sales and revenue.

Increased profit margins: By allowing distributors to mark up prices, the company can increase its profit margins without having to raise its own prices. This can help to maintain competitiveness in the market.

Brand management: Allowing distributors to mark up prices can help the company to maintain control over its brand image and pricing strategy. This can be important for companies that want to position themselves as high-end or premium brands.

Channel management: Allowing distributors to mark up prices can also help the company to manage its distribution channels more effectively. By setting different prices for different channels, the company can target specific markets and customer segments.

Cost reduction: Allowing distributors to mark up prices can also help the company to reduce its own costs by passing on some of the responsibility for sales and marketing to the distributor.

However, it's important to keep in mind that allowing distributors to mark up prices also creates a risk of price erosion if the distributor's mark up is too high or if there is too much competition, it may also lead to customers to shop around for the best price which could affect the company's brand image and reputation.

True for almost every industry in the world. For some reason most of you can't put 2 and 2 together. This industry is currently like no other on earth.

[mossoholic]

Originally Posted by oldgoldy97

What does Moss do for a profession that would give all this insight and provide legitimacy to his claims?

I've been involved in the hobby one way or another for 25+ years and on a daily basis probably since 2012.

This isn't rocket science. Countless information is available on the subject we are discussing if anyone wants to do the research. Will I get some type of prize if I spend countless hours going over all of what I have the last several years? A bunch of this information I posted at the time it was happening in countless threads over the last give or take 3 years. Not that anyone will actually go back and read any of those threads.

You guys act like this is a subject someone can't easily do research on and draw similar conclusions to what I have. Panini and Topps have been in a situation that other businesses don't see. Panini and Topps should do what is best for them.

Yet again, if Im so wrong why has Topps changed their business model since Fanatics took over? If the old ways of Panini and Topps were so great why is Topps cutting out distributors, raising distributor cost, raising prices for consumers on their site or lowering their production costs, and selling more direct to consumer?

Panini as a company has no reason to not try to get every last penny now. The licenses will be gone in a few years. Topps is going to have the long term licenses. Topps are the ones that should care about the hobby and overall interest long term.

[oldgoldy97]

Got my first card in 84.

Been on blowout since 2009.

I’m bigger than you.

[oldgoldy97]

Honestly, are you Warren from St Paul?

[oldgoldy97]

For reference

https://www.reddit.com/r/kfan/commen...udge_and_lake/

Warren is a frequent caller to the local radio station. He covers every sport and is wrong 99.9% of the time. His best take was that Adrian Peterson wouldn’t be as good as some schlub the Bears drafted.

But, he can probably add 2+2 and has been “involved” with sports for decades so how could he be wrong?

[base set]

The product Panini has sold the longest and sells the most of is World Cup stickers, an incredibly famous product around the globe that goes back over 50 years now.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Mossoholic has been in the sports card industry for over 25 years and doesn't know that Panini has been in the sports card world since the mid-twentieth century? LOL They incorporated in the US as Panini USA after acquiring Donruss/Playoff, but were in the space for decades before that.

Again, yhere is nothing unique to the card industry that the business world hasn't seen before. Get a clue.

Sent from my SM-A505U using Tapatalk