What does the Paintball Industry need?

[Missy-Q]

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.......

.

I don't think I'm assuming anything. I'm using only the information already revealed. To guess at information unrevealed would be the 'assumption' in my eyes. If we were speculating, I would say that the 30% is not as straightforward as we might think. A 30% figure, when used in marketing, will likely include a freight saving. That muddies the waters straight away.
Do I think the paint manufacturers will earn a few quid more? Yes, undoubtedly, do I think that anyone will actually see a real 30% saving anywhere? No, I think a realistic figure will be considerably less than this. I also don't think any of the supposed 30% saving is going to go to the elements of the industry that actually need it.
What I DO know, is that Richmond would do extremely well if 50cal flew. he would likely make enough cash to retire again, and think of another cash-grab to enter the industry with. in a few years time.

As for the investment in new markers for the fields, no, I haven't forgotten. I imagine many larger fields will be given the guns, or have them heavily subsidised, in return for a paint contract. I also believe that field owners should be replacing their arsenal every 3 years anyway, if they wish to remain successful.

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.

Yes, I'm sure they have done plenty of testing. Yes they are releasing it. What does that prove, other than nothing? That it's a 'whole new ball game'? Do we just have faith that because the manufacturer of the product has tested the product, that it must be all they claim it to be? Isn't that a bit like the story of ther Emperor and his new clothes, with Richmond as the tailor, and the consumer as the Emperor?

I have 2 questions with 50 cal.

1. Does it work as well as 68 cal, to the extent that it could replace it. If the answer to this is no then what's the point??
2. Even if the answer is yes, is it actually a good ideas that will offer real benefits to people other than Richmond & Smart Parts? Will it make the current economic industry situation better, or worse?

To be clear. Although I may come across as an opponent of 50 cal. I would say I'm just super-skeptical. I do intend to get familiar with the product in Florida, and listen to the sales-pitch. After that, and speaking with the rest of the industry, I'll finalise an opinion on it.

 

[Missy-Q]

If I remember correctly Hovid stopped manufacturing paint, or are they still on the go? Last I heard they were making bath balls.

Hah, well if that's the case I'm glad to hear it. They used euro-handouts, paid for by the tax-payers, to set up a plant that was supposed to make bath-balls, garlic capsules etc, and then said that to 'test the machines' they would make some paintballs. The cut-off was 3 months later that they had to stop and make what they had been subsidised to make. Instead, they brought in 2 Italians from Pharmagel, improved their product, and spent the next several years selling it direct to the field operators, cutting out any distribution, chopping the nuts out of market prices and choking the industry.
Bunch of scumbags in my opinion. If they stopped making paint then maybe someone finally held them to task, and not before time.

 

[Missy-Q]

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.

I would be for a move back to paint-sponsored events, where RPS put out their best product and everyone had to use it. But history tells us that these events will not be well supported. Teams sponsored by brand x will not go to an event sponsored by brand y. The only way to acheive this is to cut all paint sponsorships to teams, delete the issue, and only sponsor events with paint. Again, I would be for this, but the teams would be less pleased, as Paint is the main operating cost of a team. Again, a case of what's good for the industry being bad for the consumers.

By doing the above though, you in no way restrict the flow of other paint into the market. The other paint companies have sales-people with targets to meet, and a database of all the people they need to sell to. They don't need to go after the event with 30, 50 or even 100 teams in it. They just call the fields and stores from their desk. If their product is comparable, and cheaper, they will likely get the business they need.

 

[stongle]

1. I would be for a move back to paint-sponsored events, where RPS put out their best product and everyone had to use it. But history tells us that these events will not be well supported. Teams sponsored by brand x will not go to an event sponsored by brand y. The only way to acheive this is to cut all paint sponsorships to teams, delete the issue, and only sponsor events with paint. Again, I would be for this, but the teams would be less pleased, as Paint is the main operating cost of a team. Again, a case of what's good for the industry being bad for the consumers.

2. By doing the above though, you in no way restrict the flow of other paint into the market. The other paint companies have sales-people with targets to meet, and a database of all the people they need to sell to. They don't need to go after the event with 30, 50 or even 100 teams in it. They just call the fields and stores from their desk. If their product is comparable, and cheaper, they will likely get the business they need.

In response:

1. I agree, but the tournament teams will likely benefit from this in the long run by ensuring that sponsorships only go to the best most deserving teams ergo giving them a reason to actually get better.

2. Again I agree, but since you quoted the Hovid example earlier; anything that limits entry into the market (no matter how limited) is a step in the right direction. There is no magic or overnight fix, we have to make small steps. I would see such a step even if initially at the tournament level, a reason for the bigger paint manufacturers to get behind and support player / industry bodies.

There is no magic pill.

 

[Missy-Q]

In response:

1. I agree, but the tournament teams will likely benefit from this in the long run by ensuring that sponsorships only go to the best most deserving teams ergo giving them a reason to actually get better.

2. Again I agree, but since you quoted the Hovid example earlier; anything that limits entry into the market (no matter how limited) is a step in the right direction. There is no magic or overnight fix, we have to make small steps. I would see such a step even if initially at the tournament level, a reason for the bigger paint manufacturers to get behind and support player / industry bodies.

There is no magic pill.

I think that the long term solution is for the manufacturers to hit vital price-points, fix margins and organise distribution properly. Margins for a retail store should be no less than 40%. Distributors should be able to earn 25% margin. MAP needs to be enforced and policed.
If this happens, then the consumer is faced with choices at various price-points, and whatever he chooses to buy, the industry margiuns are maintained.
For me, it is up to the store owners and distributors to drive this change by refusing to carry a product from a manufacturer unless minimum margins are upheld. This kind of movement needs to be led by the large retailers, Pevs, Cousins, PBC, Badlands, Paintballgear.com, etc, and backed up by companies like KEE action Sports & Procaps.
For too long the manufacturers have set small margins for dealers, in an attempt to create a lower market price. There is a lack of understanding between the people that make the products and the people that sell them.

 

[stongle]

I think that the long term solution is for the manufacturers to hit vital price-points, fix margins and organise distribution properly. Margins for a retail store should be no less than 40%. Distributors should be able to earn 25% margin. MAP needs to be enforced and policed.
If this happens, then the consumer is faced with choices at various price-points, and whatever he chooses to buy, the industry margiuns are maintained.
For me, it is up to the store owners and distributors to drive this change by refusing to carry a product from a manufacturer unless minimum margins are upheld. This kind of movement needs to be led by the large retailers, Pevs, Cousins, PBC, Badlands, Paintballgear.com, etc, and backed up by companies like KEE action Sports & Procaps.
For too long the manufacturers have set small margins for dealers, in an attempt to create a lower market price. There is a lack of understanding between the people that make the products and the people that sell them.

Interesting the retailers are all North American based......

I'll bow to your learned experience on that market, but for the European or more specific UK market more is required to convert customers to repeat or Rec players (this in turn gets them into the retailers). I'm sure the quoted solution is also relevent here, but the recreational player base is so much smaller it may have less of an impact.

 

[Missy-Q]

Interesting the retailers are all North American based......

They are volume-based. They buy more than anyone elase, so the pressure they can apply is greater. I think an attempt without these players would be weakened, but of course I think there should be more people involved than just the people I mentioned.

 

[Piper]

I think that the long term solution is for the manufacturers to hit vital price-points, fix margins and organise distribution properly. Margins for a retail store should be no less than 40%. Distributors should be able to earn 25% margin. MAP needs to be enforced and policed.
If this happens, then the consumer is faced with choices at various price-points, and whatever he chooses to buy, the industry margiuns are maintained.
For me, it is up to the store owners and distributors to drive this change by refusing to carry a product from a manufacturer unless minimum margins are upheld.

100% agree with you Missy on this point! However this will work in USA as MAP can be enforced but in Europe MAP is not enforceable in a lot of countries and because of the different currencies it makes it very hard to enforce it like in USA. So if there was a way of enforcing it I feel that we (as an industry) should find a way of fixing it

 

[Robbo]

100% agree with you Missy on this point! However this will work in USA as MAP can be enforced but in Europe MAP is not enforceable in a lot of countries and because of the different currencies it makes it very hard to enforce it like in USA. So if there was a way of enforcing it I feel that we (as an industry) should find a way of fixing it

Missy certainly has some credible answers but every single possible answer is inevitably predicated upon industry co-operation .... and there weeee haaaaave it !!!!!

The solution and the insurmountable problem innnnnn one!!!

What Missy suggests is most certainly coherent enough but it is rendered rhetorical bullsh!t by an industry devoid of commonsense and direction.

 

[onasilverbike]

So, are we agreed that the answer to Piper's question is volume?

As for MAP, it is just that, not MRP, a dealer can decide to share some of his margin with the customer at the point of sale, be it through 'sponsorship', support, loyalty reward or whatever.