Steven Judd's Sports Card File talks about Content

I wanted to link you guys to what I consider to be a must read post, on a must read blog.


http://www.sportscardfile.com/?p=60

The Real Problem
Leave a comment »

Do you realize that most of the problems that plague this industry are derived from one simple issue? A lot of people would have you think that these problems are the results of multi-faceted issues that are difficult to identify and even more difficult to resolve. They are all wrong. All of these issues stem from one issue that manufacturers fail to own up to and fail to resolve.

This simple issue is compelling content, or a lack thereof. ...contd

I applaud Steve for his direct presentation of his opinion, based on years of being part of multiple corportae sub-cultures in the industry.
While I agree content is obviously an issue, the effect of licensing deals cannot be of enought emphasis. The deals are staggering and terribly structured.
The companies that enter them (in the four major sports) do so only because they do not see an alternative. You cannot be a behemoth company making niche products regardless of how creative or unique they are (i.e. Leaf at present). However, for companies like Press Pass, In the Game, Leaf and others, being a boutique manufacturer has been VERY fiscally responsible.

Steve's article is preciesely why collectors should rally around upcoming efforts to expose the truth about licensing arrangements which are unnecessary and merely extract 20-30% of the value from your purchase of sports cards. The truth will be exposed soon and collectors will be able to rejoice in the competition and resulting innovation and price improvements.

Well done, Juddy.
BG

The article makes me wonder if the leagues would come out better in the licensing revenues from trading card products if they upped their percentage take of gross revs to 30% (assuming it was like 20-25%), eliminated the minimum guaranteed licensing revenue, whittled down the number of releases to place the focus on quality vs crap and increase the shelf life/desirability of the product, and worked more directly with the licensee on the products that are developed.

Can you imagine if MLB went to Topps and told them they still like the idea of Triple Threads or Allen/Ginter, but it's becoming boring, it's been the same for the last several releases and for 2011 that Topps should work on new innovations/quality content in the product to spice it up? I wonder if the extra quality put into the product combined with a slightly higher take on the gross would bring in more licensing revenue from the product than the current system.

I still don't understand why X amount from one manufacturer is better than X + a little bit more / 4 manufacturers.

If Topps pays $6m for the license, lower the fee to, say, $2m and allow 4 manufacturers in. MLBP then gets $8m, and consumers will typically spend more thanthey would have otherwise, and four companies profit.

Jeff N. said:

I still don't understand why X amount from one manufacturer is better than X + a little bit more / 4 manufacturers.

If Topps pays $6m for the license, lower the fee to, say, $2m and allow 4 manufacturers in. MLBP then gets $8m, and consumers will typically spend more thanthey would have otherwise, and four companies profit.

Click to expand...

Because MLB sees the need to regulate its licensees.


It's easier to regulate one than 4.

Outstanding work by Steven as usual!!

The big question is, does topps or MLBP care?

The answer?

When it took him over a paragraph to get to this so called, "simple issue," I stopped reading

TL;DR

afrobandit said:

When it took him over a paragraph to get to this so called, "simple issue," I stopped reading

TL;DR

Click to expand...

some things can't be explained in a paragraph

Jeff N. said:

I still don't understand why X amount from one manufacturer is better than X + a little bit more / 4 manufacturers.

If Topps pays $6m for the license, lower the fee to, say, $2m and allow 4 manufacturers in. MLBP then gets $8m, and consumers will typically spend more thanthey would have otherwise, and four companies profit.

Click to expand...

Ding Ding Ding
We have a winner... BG

cgilmo said:

Jeff N. said:

I still don't understand why X amount from one manufacturer is better than X + a little bit more / 4 manufacturers.

If Topps pays $6m for the license, lower the fee to, say, $2m and allow 4 manufacturers in. MLBP then gets $8m, and consumers will typically spend more thanthey would have otherwise, and four companies profit.

Click to expand...

Because MLB sees the need to regulate its licensees.


It's easier to regulate one than 4.

Click to expand...

I'm sure with the extra $2 mil. they could hire more people to "police" the 3 extra manufacturers.

chashawk said:

The big question is, does topps or MLBP care?

Click to expand...

MLBP - doesn't care (as long as there is guaranteed licensing money on the table). Remove the minimum amount clause and they will care because sales of trading cards will affect how much licensing revenue they will bring in.

Topps - probably doesn't care as long as people keep buying the products without scrutiny of the product. If people start to smarten up, Topps will care because they'll have to figure out if the license is worth having or just take a bath on the MLB license and hope to make it up elsewhere in the sports division.

I wonder if MLBP and MLBPA will ever make the minimum license money high enough that there will never be trading cards produced because Topps or anyone else with interest will not find it financially responsible.