A very thoughtful response, but you are still missing my basic idea: they are abandoning the physical support of the old system they sold us on for so long.
My responses to yours below:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Kice"
To: "Icehouse Discussion List"
Subject: Re: [Icehouse] Monochrone Stashes - LAST CHANCE TO BUY
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 08:57:54 -0500
Product in their warehouse and not in the distrubution chain is *not* making them money which is where the issue lies. Stores don't want to carry single stashes because the concept is counter to what customers expect at retail. (It would be like selling checkers in three packages - the red pieces, the black pieces, and the board.)
Agreed . Individual stashes in a POS display are basically puzzling to people who don't already know Icehouse. Not entirely germane to my point. I'm not saying that stocking a ton of stashes at POS is a great idea. I'm saying, make them available to those who want them.
This is also a lower entry point for stores to stock Treehouse versus Icehouse. Before, they had to purchase multiple cases of pieces before they had a product they could sell as a complete game. Now, one case is all you need. The single "game in a tube" is perfect for POP displays and the bright colors attract attention. Less money to spend and less shelf space needed makes Treehouse an easier decision for retailers (and a lower risk for stores who want to give it a chance). It also opens the door for larger retailers like Borders who generally can't understand products that aren't one SKU to a game.
Again, agreed, and not entirely germane to my point.
Three other facts to consider:
- Direct-to-consumer sales for Looney Labs only accounts for 20% of their total sales. (http://www.looneylabs.com/OurCompany/Investors.html
). To keep products out of the distribution channel for 80% of their customers can end up costing them money.
It has not really been demonstrated that making stashes available will keep products out of the distribution channel for people who want to buy the new product. If the levels are that close, it's already past time to make a new run.
Once again, if profit levels are the ONLY concern, why not make pyramids in China?
- The pyramids are currently expensive ($1 per 15 of a single color -
http://www.wunderland.com/LooneyLabs/StoveStuff/IcehouseRFQ.html) and slow to make (limitations of the mold require pyramids to be hand cut from the runners) which gives any Icehouse product a narrow profit margin. While they do get a bonus by selling direct to gamers (since they get to keep the wholesale markup for themselves), they still aren't going to move as much product as their distributors.
True. But they have sold accessories for years. And we bought them.
- Rainbow Treehouse is *sold out*. By keeping their existing single-color stashes, they are choosing to not make money by selling them as Treehouse sets. While long-term you are correct, at this moment offering single stashes would directly cost them money.
Only partially correct. If people want to buy stashes, make them available.
All of the product doesn't have to go to Treehouse.
Truth be told, I'm not a huge Treehouse fan myself. (I discovered Looney Labs through Chrononauts and that continues to be my all-time fav.) I do, however, see this is a huge success for Looney Labs. At ChiTAG last year, I had a huge purchase rate off of demos because the game moves fast and people like that they could turn it into more games later if they chose. They were buying one game with the promise of more.
Great! We want them to be solvent!
Also - keep in mind that if Treehouse continues to be a runaway success, Looney Labs can finally afford to retool the molding process which makes pieces cheaper and easier to produce which makes it viable to return to keeping single-stashes around.
True. I suspect if they took microloans, they could get enough from all the fervent rabbits to fund a lot of that. I'd support it. I'd be first in line, and you can hold me to that offer.
I obviously can't speak for the Looneys, but I honestly don't think this is the end of single stashes forever.
I hope not. That's why I'm am giving my opinion.
Right now, however, this is the best use of their resources.
Only partially correct, at best, in my opinion.
No one has shown me anything to prove that making stashes available to those who want to buy them is losing money.
On 8/2/07, swandive78@xxxxxxxxx <swandive78@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Thanks for your time.
However, my statements stand, including the comments on the misconception that not making stashes available, in and of itself, somehow makes more money for the Looneys.
Icehouse mailing list