- Thread starter
- #1
Topnotchsy
Featured Contributor, The best players in history?
- Aug 7, 2008
- 9,448
- 176
To Topps,
In 1997 you created a wonderful product called Bowman Chrome. Over the next few years you tweaked it a bit, introducing gold refractors in 1999 (albeit numbered /25) and autographs in 2001 (though the 1 per box concept came in 2002.) The product was a fabulous success. It had a simple, predictable format, and that worked really well. The company was happy because it was a very popular set (without the expenses of including signatures and game-used materials from expensive, high-priced current stars or retired players.) The fans were happy because they could get rookie cards of their favorite players, many of which were signed, and dealers were happy because in general the boxes provided a decent return on investment. Overall there was a level of market equilibrium that allowed people to consider that this model could carry on successfully for many years, and people would continue to view Bowman Chrome as the premier rookie set, while it carried a price point that allowed even casual fans to get involved.
Something happened though. Print runs started increasing, and the autograph checklist began expanding making it extremely difficult to pull a card of a top prospect. For the first time in a number of years buying boxes during the presell was a questionable move... they might be cheaper later on. Then Topps decided that it was ok to include signed cards of players whose rookie (card) year had passed. Initially that did not go over well, but over time the cards of those players, like Prince Fielder, ended up getting accepted. In the short term it appeared the weight of Chrome and the feeling in the market that "Chrome was King" was going to win that battle.
With a bit more courage now Topps decided to take the next step. If 2nd year auto's of players who never had a Chrome
autograph sold ok, maybe include 2nd Chrome autographs of players who already had a Chrome card. It was another move to expand the print run. At the same time it added additional confusion for collectors.
Then, in another attempt to "add value" Topps recognized that within their autograph checklist there were players who, had they had an unsigned card, would sell for a bit. One of the outstanding aspects of Bowman Chrome was the fact that over the years it had become the only set whose base rookie cards still offered value. And so Topps began making two versions for many players, a signed version and an unsigned version.
Over the years there was another trend to increase "value added," the introduction of more parallels. For the price of creating cards in another color, Topps could offer more and more rare parallels and provide more value per pack.
In reality though, Topps may have gained in the short term, but they are on the verge of destroying a product that could have been a cash cow for years. As the print runs increased, the set became less and less worthwhile to case busters and as the parallels have increased, it has diminished the value of the parallels in the eyes of collectors. While there was a fairly widespread belief that in the long run Bowman Chrome Gold Refractor Autograph would be the centerpiece of any player collection, that idea (or the idea that any Bowman Chrome card, outside of possibly the superfractor or red refractor) is fading. There is no longer any consensus on which card to target, and no card that people can display with confidence as "the card." The inclusion of second year signatures has confused and annoyed many collectors. Finally, introducing non-signed versions of the players with signed cards has destroyed the market for base Bowman Chrome cards and eroded a tremendous amount of value. A 2007 David Price Gold Refractor BGS 9.5 recently sold for under $30, a shocking testament to how far the value of base Chrome non-signed cards have dropped.
Topps, you have been systematically destroying the set that could have been a cash cow for many years. You have destroyed value by looking at short term gains over long term value. You have a product that was held on a pedestal by a huge number of collectors, and you have taken your turns hacking at the pedestal, and destroying everything that made Chrome popular. In the last couple of years you have introduced a number of features to Bowman Chrome that have added interest including AFLAC cards and Futures Game logos, welcome additions, but those were things should not have been needed in Chrome. It once was a product that could stand on its own, now it cannot.
In my humble opinion there are really two choices:
1. Go back to what made people like Chrome from the beginning. 1 autograph per box, with a reasonably small autograph checklist. No second year autographs. If a player does not have a Chrome autograph, that is fine. It only adds allure to the players who do. Do not make a base card of anyone with a signed card. It destroys more value than it creates. (At the current time you may want to consider something like you did in 2002 and short print the rookies for a year or two, to bring back some value for the base cards.) Get rid of the ridiculous parallels, and bring back value and recognition to those that you keep. That means axing the purple refractors, the orange refractors, and possibly one or two others. People might complain a bit in the short term, but in the long term it will bring back the value of the parallels that are left. (Look back to 2003 and see how collectors view those parallels... it is telling.)
2. Continue doing as you are now. Unlike the old product, you will have to continually add "gimmicks" because the base formula will not carry the set long term. Over time another product, possibly from another company, will pass Bowman Chrome as the premier rookie set, and people will take off the rose colored glasses and realize that they have been paying for boxes of cards that essentially offer a single valuable card (since the base cards are close to worthless these days) and wonder why they are not buying sets that offer better value.
Thank you for your time.
(Now to those who may ask, I will not actually be mailing this to Topps. They have people who read the boards, and honestly I don't think they will listen anyways, so in essence it is more of a vent. Obviously everything included is my own opinion, so anyone can feel free to disagree...)
In 1997 you created a wonderful product called Bowman Chrome. Over the next few years you tweaked it a bit, introducing gold refractors in 1999 (albeit numbered /25) and autographs in 2001 (though the 1 per box concept came in 2002.) The product was a fabulous success. It had a simple, predictable format, and that worked really well. The company was happy because it was a very popular set (without the expenses of including signatures and game-used materials from expensive, high-priced current stars or retired players.) The fans were happy because they could get rookie cards of their favorite players, many of which were signed, and dealers were happy because in general the boxes provided a decent return on investment. Overall there was a level of market equilibrium that allowed people to consider that this model could carry on successfully for many years, and people would continue to view Bowman Chrome as the premier rookie set, while it carried a price point that allowed even casual fans to get involved.
Something happened though. Print runs started increasing, and the autograph checklist began expanding making it extremely difficult to pull a card of a top prospect. For the first time in a number of years buying boxes during the presell was a questionable move... they might be cheaper later on. Then Topps decided that it was ok to include signed cards of players whose rookie (card) year had passed. Initially that did not go over well, but over time the cards of those players, like Prince Fielder, ended up getting accepted. In the short term it appeared the weight of Chrome and the feeling in the market that "Chrome was King" was going to win that battle.
With a bit more courage now Topps decided to take the next step. If 2nd year auto's of players who never had a Chrome
autograph sold ok, maybe include 2nd Chrome autographs of players who already had a Chrome card. It was another move to expand the print run. At the same time it added additional confusion for collectors.
Then, in another attempt to "add value" Topps recognized that within their autograph checklist there were players who, had they had an unsigned card, would sell for a bit. One of the outstanding aspects of Bowman Chrome was the fact that over the years it had become the only set whose base rookie cards still offered value. And so Topps began making two versions for many players, a signed version and an unsigned version.
Over the years there was another trend to increase "value added," the introduction of more parallels. For the price of creating cards in another color, Topps could offer more and more rare parallels and provide more value per pack.
In reality though, Topps may have gained in the short term, but they are on the verge of destroying a product that could have been a cash cow for years. As the print runs increased, the set became less and less worthwhile to case busters and as the parallels have increased, it has diminished the value of the parallels in the eyes of collectors. While there was a fairly widespread belief that in the long run Bowman Chrome Gold Refractor Autograph would be the centerpiece of any player collection, that idea (or the idea that any Bowman Chrome card, outside of possibly the superfractor or red refractor) is fading. There is no longer any consensus on which card to target, and no card that people can display with confidence as "the card." The inclusion of second year signatures has confused and annoyed many collectors. Finally, introducing non-signed versions of the players with signed cards has destroyed the market for base Bowman Chrome cards and eroded a tremendous amount of value. A 2007 David Price Gold Refractor BGS 9.5 recently sold for under $30, a shocking testament to how far the value of base Chrome non-signed cards have dropped.
Topps, you have been systematically destroying the set that could have been a cash cow for many years. You have destroyed value by looking at short term gains over long term value. You have a product that was held on a pedestal by a huge number of collectors, and you have taken your turns hacking at the pedestal, and destroying everything that made Chrome popular. In the last couple of years you have introduced a number of features to Bowman Chrome that have added interest including AFLAC cards and Futures Game logos, welcome additions, but those were things should not have been needed in Chrome. It once was a product that could stand on its own, now it cannot.
In my humble opinion there are really two choices:
1. Go back to what made people like Chrome from the beginning. 1 autograph per box, with a reasonably small autograph checklist. No second year autographs. If a player does not have a Chrome autograph, that is fine. It only adds allure to the players who do. Do not make a base card of anyone with a signed card. It destroys more value than it creates. (At the current time you may want to consider something like you did in 2002 and short print the rookies for a year or two, to bring back some value for the base cards.) Get rid of the ridiculous parallels, and bring back value and recognition to those that you keep. That means axing the purple refractors, the orange refractors, and possibly one or two others. People might complain a bit in the short term, but in the long term it will bring back the value of the parallels that are left. (Look back to 2003 and see how collectors view those parallels... it is telling.)
2. Continue doing as you are now. Unlike the old product, you will have to continually add "gimmicks" because the base formula will not carry the set long term. Over time another product, possibly from another company, will pass Bowman Chrome as the premier rookie set, and people will take off the rose colored glasses and realize that they have been paying for boxes of cards that essentially offer a single valuable card (since the base cards are close to worthless these days) and wonder why they are not buying sets that offer better value.
Thank you for your time.
(Now to those who may ask, I will not actually be mailing this to Topps. They have people who read the boards, and honestly I don't think they will listen anyways, so in essence it is more of a vent. Obviously everything included is my own opinion, so anyone can feel free to disagree...)