Aeolus451 said:
They're making more amiibos, NS and NES mini but scarcity marketing is still being used with all of those. Do you guys not read my posts when I explained this stuff over and over? It's obvious that you're not or something because the very thread that you linked my post saying someone is guilllble has multiple posts that explain the what scarcity marketing is and how it works.
"Does Nintendo have sales for limited periods of time? Does it have limited edition/run products? Yes and yes? That's scarcity marketing.
Amiibo is also scarcity marketing in a variety of different ways. They do took digital DLC that has unlimited supply and turned it into a bunch of different collectable figurines that have a very limited supply. Because it now has a limited supply and collectable, there's more demand for it then there would have been if it was just digital dlc. By your dense logic, they shouldn't have created amiibos or that they shouldn't have sold so well because "again, make it scarce, so they can sell less of them, because that is great business, amirite?".
I'll try to explain this concept in a different way because you're confused on how it works. I'm gonna use the following parts as an example, I'm not quoting actual hard numbers. It's an example. Can we both agree that nintendo's goal is to sell all of their stock and make people want more? Okay good.
Let's say that nintendo can produce 5 million switches per month and that's their max production ability. I'm saying that they're taking 2 million switches from each month to store in a warehouse to create a "shortage" while the 3 million from each month sell out. They do this all year til black friday and the holidays. Because there's a shortage, there's more desire from consumers to obtain the product. This is when they unleash all of their stored switches into the market and they sell out. They don't lose any sales. They sold everything and there's alot more hype for the product because it's harder to get. Plus, the sold out headlines make investors happy."
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8545070
"There was more to that especially on the bottom.
They are still producing the same amount whether they sell throughout the year naturally or saving some for the holidays. They can only produce so many a year either way. What matters is if they sell what they produce. I'm sure they are trying to increase the maxium limits of what they can produce while they're withholding products that are sitting in a warehouse for later. "
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8545084
|
Since this is about Switch shortages, is your argument that Since Nintendo has used scarcity marketing before, whenever they have shortages, even when there's evidence of the contrary, it must be that they're using scarcity marketing? Since misunderstanding your argument could actually be easily seen as a real strawman I think I'm safe, but it's better to ask.
Aeolus451 said:
Player2 said:
The holes in your theory, you ask?
1 - Why Nintendo didn't use shortages to increase demand of their worse selling consoles like the Wii U?
2 - If Nintendo is as good as you claim at gauging interest, why they make duds like the Gamecube or the Wii U from time to time?
3 - If Nintendo is as good at predicting demand as you claim, why they had a negative shipment of consoles a few years ago?
I brought up Xbox shortages in Japan to block you from trying to escape to point 1 with "well duh, they can't create shortages with such a low demand". Yes, they can. I don't have all day for this, that's why I did it.
|
1. Again, because scarcity marketing only works with products in the demand in the first place. Nintendo would have to give Wii Us away for free and people still wouldn't play it because it lacks good games that people want.
2. Strawman much? So you're trying to get me to defend a position or opinion that I don't have.
3. Because they can make crap products just like any other company.
You call those holes in my points? 
|
1 - Nintendo didn't seem to get the memo and still did limited editions, limited runs, plus all those things you mention in the first part of your post I quoted, yet mysteriously no shortages.
Nintendo would't be able to sell as many SNES minis as Wii Us if they produced them, buy you consider it a "product in the demand". PSVR won't too, but it must be a product in demand because it had shortages this year. Sadly the poor Wii U didn't get a "product in demand" seal from you.
2 - Well, you answered this in 3 so I guess I shouldn't complain... I should've explained 3 better, the negative shipment was restricted to only one region, so it can't be explained with a wordlwide issue like a product being crap.
3 - Oh, but Nintendo isn't like any other company. According to you they can predict demand with utmost perfection, remember? They should've known that demand for Wii U was going to be terrible. Anybody who had that knowledge would've cancelled the project rather than bleed money for five years.
Aeolus451 said:
I don't have to offer up any replacement. it's irrelevant to my points. Don't you agree that anyone who fucks on their job that costs their company millions of dollars would be fired? Ok, we're clear on that. My point was that anyone who messes up and causes shortages on that scale by accident would have been fired. There was shorages over decades with multiple products. He wasn't fired because it was on purpose and controlled. Who would have replaced him has jack shit to do with my point. It's a strawman because it's meant to derail my point.
|
I'll insist one last time: You can't have Churchill-like brilliance when you can only choose between Hillary and Trump. It's that simple.
