What does the Paintball Industry need?
- Thread starter Missy-Q
- Start date
Then I know who you need - she's big, she's black and wow, is this mama fat !!
The problem is, people like Missy won't ever make CEO of a big corporation, she tells it like it is and so wouldn't ever really negotiate the climb up the corporate ladder.
Even then .... it would need the co-operation of the industry to facilitate the changes required.
Paintball is gonna survive but its route is gonna be torturous as hell.
PS Dana White, from what I hear, doesn't look after the fighters who sign for him, he's too busy stuffing as much money as he can into his back pocket, he forgets who make the UFC... the fighters !!!
Paintball could well do with his flair but not his bone-ass selfishness and greed.
If anybody falls out with Couture, then I know full well, which one the baddie is - Couture is an absolute gentleman !!
Lower prices are inevitable in the long-term. The paintball industry does not shift oil or diamonds so there is never going to be any form of oligopoly or price-fixing, all seeing overlord or cartel to ensure that it remains profitable for everyone at the party.
Cars started out seriously expensive and only accessible to the few. Technology progressed, people innovated and today prices in relative terms are far, far less than they were when it all started. A similar thing has happened to paintball but over a much shorter period of time.
It wasn't all that long ago when players with enough money to spend had a choice of an Angel, a brick-shaped Shocker, or a highly chromed custom Cocker. The companies responsible for those products innovated, as did new competitors and as technology has improved/become cheaper, barriers to entry have lowered and more products have flooded in. Marker development has been taken so far there's only really price and aesthetics left to compete on unless you have something new to offer.
Paintball does not need lower prices, no way, but it's going to happen eventually and that rate of decline needs to be plugged. Ford, despite banging out around 10,000 cars a day, make more than 50% of their profits on finance - the cars are there to sell the paperwork (this was when things were going well before the gloom). Toyota, in contrast, produce a car (in the UK of all places, where wages are huge) for around 40% less per unit than any other competitor worldwide, yet sell at the same price and enjoy huge margins (before profit on finance).
Anyone can compete and grow in times of boom where inefficiencies can be covered by volume. I think paintball needs some competitors to fail and the best ones to survive. I don't see how else prices can be expected to do anything but fall, unless new ways of adding value to paintball/its products are developed.
Cars started out seriously expensive and only accessible to the few. Technology progressed, people innovated and today prices in relative terms are far, far less than they were when it all started. A similar thing has happened to paintball but over a much shorter period of time.
It wasn't all that long ago when players with enough money to spend had a choice of an Angel, a brick-shaped Shocker, or a highly chromed custom Cocker. The companies responsible for those products innovated, as did new competitors and as technology has improved/become cheaper, barriers to entry have lowered and more products have flooded in. Marker development has been taken so far there's only really price and aesthetics left to compete on unless you have something new to offer.
Paintball does not need lower prices, no way, but it's going to happen eventually and that rate of decline needs to be plugged. Ford, despite banging out around 10,000 cars a day, make more than 50% of their profits on finance - the cars are there to sell the paperwork (this was when things were going well before the gloom). Toyota, in contrast, produce a car (in the UK of all places, where wages are huge) for around 40% less per unit than any other competitor worldwide, yet sell at the same price and enjoy huge margins (before profit on finance).
Anyone can compete and grow in times of boom where inefficiencies can be covered by volume. I think paintball needs some competitors to fail and the best ones to survive. I don't see how else prices can be expected to do anything but fall, unless new ways of adding value to paintball/its products are developed.
So according to your logic, the field owner is the recipient of an additional 30% margin.
If so, then that 30% is obviously not captured by the manufacturer or the distributor, meaning that they effectively turnover 30% less profit. The field owners get new motors, the rest have to make the cuts to be able to operate with 30% less net income? No. That would be the worst case scenario in my eyes.
The industry won't gift this supposed 30% saving to the field owners. The field owners already garner more margin that anyone else in the industry. If they want to make more money, they should improve their product. Even through this economic downturn, the fields have done fine, 'well' even.
Its the stores, dealers, distributors and manufacturers that are suffering. They rely on people buying equipment rather than renting it. They need more people to buy gear. They don't need to sell the same gear for 30% less, because that hurts them even more.
What the "Industry" needs to do, is enforce some control over (or regulate) the supply and distribution of paint. Introducing an oligopoly or cartel, whilst counter to free market forces is probably the only way to get the site owners to start playing ball with the "collective" or big interest. One of the biggest reasons customer sites are generally not invested in, is that little or no value is placed on invested in repeat custom. Why would a site owner invest in his site to generate repeat custom, when after the 2nd time of coming that customer wants bullets at £30 a box?
Site owners make their money on paint sales, and this direct threat from wholesalers and retailers (whom do not take the risk of vertical integration) selling bullets to almost anyone at trade is killing investment at the site level. I mean you may as well rape the paying customer, because the wholesalers and industry has already rumped you.
Of course, this rely's upon wholesale commonsense breaking out in the Paintball commnuity, but it's not overly difficult to actually implement.
Single paint events
Ban advertising of bullets
Paint only available through specific / trusted dealers
Paintball is a very small industry, and until all the internal interests are aligned you won't see any form of sustainable or significant recovery.
I think .50 cal is a sideshow, and in the long term not likely to improve the situation. It won't increase customer flow in anything like the numbers required, and again there is no incentive to pass through cost savings to actual site investment. Making the day 5 or 10% cheaper won't make much of a difference to the first time customer, but making it 20% more enjoyable will. Paintball is already keenly priced in the "day-out" or recreational sector, and this is where the main competition actually exists.
Site owners make their money on paint sales, and this direct threat from wholesalers and retailers (whom do not take the risk of vertical integration) selling bullets to almost anyone at trade is killing investment at the site level. I mean you may as well rape the paying customer, because the wholesalers and industry has already rumped you.
Of course, this rely's upon wholesale commonsense breaking out in the Paintball commnuity, but it's not overly difficult to actually implement.
Single paint events
Ban advertising of bullets
Paint only available through specific / trusted dealers
Paintball is a very small industry, and until all the internal interests are aligned you won't see any form of sustainable or significant recovery.
I think .50 cal is a sideshow, and in the long term not likely to improve the situation. It won't increase customer flow in anything like the numbers required, and again there is no incentive to pass through cost savings to actual site investment. Making the day 5 or 10% cheaper won't make much of a difference to the first time customer, but making it 20% more enjoyable will. Paintball is already keenly priced in the "day-out" or recreational sector, and this is where the main competition actually exists.
While I think this is a possible remedy, it's illegal, and therefore not possible.
Cartelling/price-fixing reared its head in paintball in the early 90's, when RPS, under ringleader Paul Tournier, & Zap tried to unofficially agree what paint was going to sell for. Two things happened. First, they were threatened with legal action by the 2 main US distributors, and 2nd, they opened the way for smaller manufacturers to start making paint. Companies like Hovid in Ireland popped up, and started eroding the business of the top 2, at which point all bets were off.
In the case where the establishment try to sure-up pricing, there will always be the 3rd party who will exploit this agreement for their own profit. With paint manufacturers now in India, China, Taiwan, Italy, Ireland, Canada, Mexico, Colombia and the US, there is now zero chance that an agreement could be reached, and if it could, it would still be illegal.
You are assuming that the paint isn't cheaper for the manufacturer to make.
You also forget that the field owners have the initial investment to make in new markers, new loaders, pods. So yes it is 30% cheaper, but you have to pay a lump sum for the privilege. Presumably the lump sum which would have bought a new motor.......
There is still too much unknown and unproven about .50cal, but I can't see them releasing it without having done some serious field testing.
If I remember correctly Hovid stopped manufacturing paint, or are they still on the go? Last I heard they were making bath balls.
I agree, and wasn't suggesting price fixing. I should have been more explicit in my post. We need consensus amoung the paint producers / distributors on how and to whom they market paint.
Obviously if that consensus is not forthcoming, the other approach is to only sanction certain brands of paints at events (i.e. those that agree to selling restrictions). This limits entry into the market, but requires a robust impartial player or industry body, e.g. the Fed. I don't think that would be illegal, as criteria for Paint could be set on multiple points including safety.