lol @ scambassadors

#11MegagutsPosted 8/7/2011 2:38:07 PM
elheber posted...
emagdnE posted...
do you really think retailers care about losing $80 out of a $250 sale that wouldn't have happened if it weren't for the price drop in the first place?

neither Best Buy or Nintendo loses money from "scambassadors", they GET money

I have nothing against scambassadors, but you just made some dumb logic there.
"If the unit is sold at 250, they make a 250 sale. If the unit is sold at 250 and a rebate is given for 80, they make a 170 sale. It's a profit for them either way." This is dumb logic. Super dumb logic. It cost the retail store money to get the unit to sell in the first place.

If I sell pies and it costs me 8 dollars to stock each pie in my pie store, then I sell it at 10 dollars... well I just made a 2 dollar profit from a 10 dollar sale. If I sell it a 6 dollars, then I just lost 2 dollars from a 6 dollar sale. So just because they made a $170 sale doesn't mean it isn't costing them money.

That said, if it's their policy to make price guarantee rebates, then it's their choice. But it's absurd to think that nobody takes a hit, and money just emerges out of thin air.


You're analogy is a bit off. The retailers aren't losing money.

It would be more apt to say that it costs them $6 to stock the pie, they were selling at $10 for a $4 profit but are now only selling them at $8 for a $2 profit.
---
GT: ConfederateRokr
Live every week like it's shark week
#12elheberPosted 8/7/2011 3:31:59 PM(edited)
Are you saying it costs retailers less than $170 to stock a 3DS?

EDIT: In other words, Nintendo's choice to price the 3DS at $250 was only so that they could allow retailers to take all the profit of that price? Nintendo was selling the 3DS at a loss all along, except to retailers so that the retailers could be the ones to make that $80+ profit?
---
"A closet intellectual, he acts dumb to impress women."
#13baconcow1812Posted 8/7/2011 3:33:30 PM
You're not very bright, TC. Policies like the one that BestBuy has ALWAYS loses the retailer money over the initial sale. Think about it.
---
"the hell!?"
#14TLozFTWPosted 8/7/2011 3:38:48 PM
Iwata has already said that they are reimbursing retailers who bought units at the old price. However, the "scambassadors" are buying their systems at the old price, so whether or not those are included in the price protection is unclear (and unlikely).

If what I think is true, this is actually sort of funny, because the "scambassadors" would be costing the retailer (which are typically portrayed as the bad guy) money, but the people who buy it "legitimately" after the price drop are costing Nintendo.

http://www.gonintendo.com/?mode=viewstory&id=158107
Third paragraph.
#15elheberPosted 8/7/2011 3:50:21 PM
TLozFTW posted...
Iwata has already said that they are reimbursing retailers who bought units at the old price.

Of course. But only for the units sold by retailers after the price drop. This is how it's always worked with every other console price drop.
---
"A closet intellectual, he acts dumb to impress women."
#16Nate_DihldorffPosted 8/7/2011 4:25:16 PM
elheber posted...
TLozFTW posted...
Iwata has already said that they are reimbursing retailers who bought units at the old price.

Of course. But only for the units sold by retailers after the price drop. This is how it's always worked with every other console price drop.




Which is why you should have read the rest of his post.
---
http://kotaku.com/5811665/2011-is-all-about-the-gun-barrels
#17elheberPosted 8/7/2011 4:36:44 PM
I did. I see he implied it by stating that scambassadors would cost retailers money, but the first paragraph really seemed to conflict since it appeared he said retailers would be reimbursed for their stock of units bought before the price drop, which is misleading even if by accident.
---
"A closet intellectual, he acts dumb to impress women."