The final word on the 2010 Bowman Wrapper Redemption

[Bob Loblaw]

[quote="Jeff N.":1p7n91tq]

[quote="Jeff N.":1p7n91tq]

It's amazing that they call the buybacks a production error and can't admit that they were never going to be included. The Harper plans were announced on the 21st of October and the product ships out a few days later to distributors. They just realized the product was junk so they tried to get some hype knowing the whole time that they would have to do a wrapper redemption to give out the buybacks.

The wrapper redemption is just a marketing ploy to get people to open the product, it's not to 'correct a production error'.

If this is the case, why not state it's a wrapper redemption in the first place? It'll get people opening packs.

Simple, the busiest day of the product is the day of its release. Topps waits 1 week to announce the wrapper redemption which would force customers to bust additional boxes/cases to acquire said wrappers. Topps doesn't get additional sales at this point, but it allows the distributors and wholesalers to sell their product to keep them happy. But in this instance, too little, too late.

As of the day of release, everything's already sold. Topps has sold 100% of what they made. There's no benefit to Topps as to whether everyone buys the cards from the distributors or no one buys the cards from the distributors.

Now, there's an argument that could be made that Topps wants their distributors to do well, but I don't really think they care.

However, annoucing the redemption on the day of release is going to have little difference than annoucing it a week later. I was planning on buying a case when they got down to $400. I believe that this redemption is oging to keep the cases from hitting $400 anytime soon, so I bought the case at $465 (less $10 in eBay bucks I have coming to me, net price $455). The wrappers will be -- could be -- easily sold for $55, so the case still costs me $400.

I just don't see the impact -- other than the rock bottom of the cases not reaching as far as it did - if Topps announced this a week ago or yesterday.

Of course Topps cares. The less product the distributor can sell the less future product they can/will buy from Topps. It's in both parties best interest for the distributors to be able to sell as much as possible.

If one distributor goes out of business, there will be others Topps will sell to.[/quote:1p7n91tq]

That's a little extreme. Of course Topps can always sell some product. Point is if their average distributor is sitting on 50% of what they bought in 2010 BC, that's cash they can't use to buy 2010 BDP or something else.[/quote:1p7n91tq]

And it's 2010 BDP that someone else will order.

I understand your argument, and in a real world scenario, it would make sense. But these are baseball cards. Logic and reasoning have no presence here.

 

[Leaf]

[quote="Jeff N.":2pd7nyfz]

[quote="Jeff N.":2pd7nyfz]

[quote="Jeff N.":2pd7nyfz]

It's amazing that they call the buybacks a production error and can't admit that they were never going to be included. The Harper plans were announced on the 21st of October and the product ships out a few days later to distributors. They just realized the product was junk so they tried to get some hype knowing the whole time that they would have to do a wrapper redemption to give out the buybacks.

The wrapper redemption is just a marketing ploy to get people to open the product, it's not to 'correct a production error'.

If this is the case, why not state it's a wrapper redemption in the first place? It'll get people opening packs.

Simple, the busiest day of the product is the day of its release. Topps waits 1 week to announce the wrapper redemption which would force customers to bust additional boxes/cases to acquire said wrappers. Topps doesn't get additional sales at this point, but it allows the distributors and wholesalers to sell their product to keep them happy. But in this instance, too little, too late.

As of the day of release, everything's already sold. Topps has sold 100% of what they made. There's no benefit to Topps as to whether everyone buys the cards from the distributors or no one buys the cards from the distributors.

Now, there's an argument that could be made that Topps wants their distributors to do well, but I don't really think they care.

However, annoucing the redemption on the day of release is going to have little difference than annoucing it a week later. I was planning on buying a case when they got down to $400. I believe that this redemption is oging to keep the cases from hitting $400 anytime soon, so I bought the case at $465 (less $10 in eBay bucks I have coming to me, net price $455). The wrappers will be -- could be -- easily sold for $55, so the case still costs me $400.

I just don't see the impact -- other than the rock bottom of the cases not reaching as far as it did - if Topps announced this a week ago or yesterday.

Of course Topps cares. The less product the distributor can sell the less future product they can/will buy from Topps. It's in both parties best interest for the distributors to be able to sell as much as possible.

If one distributor goes out of business, there will be others Topps will sell to.[/quote:2pd7nyfz]

That's a little extreme. Of course Topps can always sell some product. Point is if their average distributor is sitting on 50% of what they bought in 2010 BC, that's cash they can't use to buy 2010 BDP or something else.[/quote:2pd7nyfz]

And it's 2010 BDP that someone else will order.

I understand your argument, and in a real world scenario, it would make sense. But these are baseball cards. Logic and reasoning have no presence here.[/quote:2pd7nyfz]

This is the real world.... The massive dump Topps took on the market with these massively produced items is damaging the wholesale sales of ALL trading cards. There are 2 distirbutors on the verge of going out of business over this irresponsibility (theirs coulped with Topps').

I can tell you now that orders will be light for the forseeable future due to this cluster.

To say that the wholesale market isn't important is extremely short sighted and is obviously not accurate to anyone who has operated in all parts of the industry. The wholesale market has been crushed by Topps Chrome, bowman Chrome, Topps Update (and Bowman PLatinum when it tanks).

BG


BG

 

[bmc398]

[quote="Jeff N.":22txna0s]

[quote="Jeff N.":22txna0s]

[quote="Jeff N.":22txna0s]

It's amazing that they call the buybacks a production error and can't admit that they were never going to be included. The Harper plans were announced on the 21st of October and the product ships out a few days later to distributors. They just realized the product was junk so they tried to get some hype knowing the whole time that they would have to do a wrapper redemption to give out the buybacks.

The wrapper redemption is just a marketing ploy to get people to open the product, it's not to 'correct a production error'.

If this is the case, why not state it's a wrapper redemption in the first place? It'll get people opening packs.

Simple, the busiest day of the product is the day of its release. Topps waits 1 week to announce the wrapper redemption which would force customers to bust additional boxes/cases to acquire said wrappers. Topps doesn't get additional sales at this point, but it allows the distributors and wholesalers to sell their product to keep them happy. But in this instance, too little, too late.

As of the day of release, everything's already sold. Topps has sold 100% of what they made. There's no benefit to Topps as to whether everyone buys the cards from the distributors or no one buys the cards from the distributors.

Now, there's an argument that could be made that Topps wants their distributors to do well, but I don't really think they care.

However, annoucing the redemption on the day of release is going to have little difference than annoucing it a week later. I was planning on buying a case when they got down to $400. I believe that this redemption is oging to keep the cases from hitting $400 anytime soon, so I bought the case at $465 (less $10 in eBay bucks I have coming to me, net price $455). The wrappers will be -- could be -- easily sold for $55, so the case still costs me $400.

I just don't see the impact -- other than the rock bottom of the cases not reaching as far as it did - if Topps announced this a week ago or yesterday.

Of course Topps cares. The less product the distributor can sell the less future product they can/will buy from Topps. It's in both parties best interest for the distributors to be able to sell as much as possible.

If one distributor goes out of business, there will be others Topps will sell to.[/quote:22txna0s]

That's a little extreme. Of course Topps can always sell some product. Point is if their average distributor is sitting on 50% of what they bought in 2010 BC, that's cash they can't use to buy 2010 BDP or something else.[/quote:22txna0s]

And it's 2010 BDP that someone else will order.

I understand your argument, and in a real world scenario, it would make sense. But these are baseball cards. Logic and reasoning have no presence here.[/quote:22txna0s]
At this point...your last point isn't true. I have from sources that Topps hasn't getten a ton of orders for 2010 BDP. Sure, they have gotten some but the fact that people have no clue what they will be getting with all of the bait and switching going on is a huge factor. Less orders mean less product made which will lead to better value coming out as far as color parallels.

I expect that Topps will do right with BDP, but it will cost them a ton of missed revenue in extra cases they COULD have produced by not screwing up TC and BC. Like...to the point they could miss out on upwards of $2mil less in revenue from this product than they pocketed with TC and BC.

Even though people won't stop buying, they will order less upfront and it will hurt their bottom line.

 

[Bob Loblaw]

[quote="Jeff N.":1s3onstd]

[quote="Jeff N.":1s3onstd]

[quote="Jeff N.":1s3onstd][quote="frzg":1s3onstd]It's amazing that they call the buybacks a production error and can't admit that they were never going to be included. The Harper plans were announced on the 21st of October and the product ships out a few days later to distributors. They just realized the product was junk so they tried to get some hype knowing the whole time that they would have to do a wrapper redemption to give out the buybacks.

The wrapper redemption is just a marketing ploy to get people to open the product, it's not to 'correct a production error'.

If this is the case, why not state it's a wrapper redemption in the first place? It'll get people opening packs.

Simple, the busiest day of the product is the day of its release. Topps waits 1 week to announce the wrapper redemption which would force customers to bust additional boxes/cases to acquire said wrappers. Topps doesn't get additional sales at this point, but it allows the distributors and wholesalers to sell their product to keep them happy. But in this instance, too little, too late.

As of the day of release, everything's already sold. Topps has sold 100% of what they made. There's no benefit to Topps as to whether everyone buys the cards from the distributors or no one buys the cards from the distributors.

Now, there's an argument that could be made that Topps wants their distributors to do well, but I don't really think they care.

However, annoucing the redemption on the day of release is going to have little difference than annoucing it a week later. I was planning on buying a case when they got down to $400. I believe that this redemption is oging to keep the cases from hitting $400 anytime soon, so I bought the case at $465 (less $10 in eBay bucks I have coming to me, net price $455). The wrappers will be -- could be -- easily sold for $55, so the case still costs me $400.

I just don't see the impact -- other than the rock bottom of the cases not reaching as far as it did - if Topps announced this a week ago or yesterday.

Of course Topps cares. The less product the distributor can sell the less future product they can/will buy from Topps. It's in both parties best interest for the distributors to be able to sell as much as possible.

If one distributor goes out of business, there will be others Topps will sell to.[/quote:1s3onstd]

That's a little extreme. Of course Topps can always sell some product. Point is if their average distributor is sitting on 50% of what they bought in 2010 BC, that's cash they can't use to buy 2010 BDP or something else.[/quote:1s3onstd]

And it's 2010 BDP that someone else will order.

I understand your argument, and in a real world scenario, it would make sense. But these are baseball cards. Logic and reasoning have no presence here.[/quote:1s3onstd]
At this point...your last point isn't true. I have from sources that Topps hasn't getten a ton of orders for 2010 BDP. Sure, they have gotten some but the fact that people have no clue what they will be getting with all of the bait and switching going on is a huge factor. Less orders mean less product made which will lead to better value coming out as far as color parallels.

I expect that Topps will do right with BDP, but it will cost them a ton of missed revenue in extra cases they COULD have produced by not screwing up TC and BC. Like...to the point they could miss out on upwards of $2mil less in revenue from this product than they pocketed with TC and BC.

Even though people won't stop buying, they will order less upfront and it will hurt their bottom line.[/quote:1s3onstd]


BUT, they already made that money with BC and TC.

And, when BDP comes out and is SPed and looks like a good deal, then 2011 TC and BC will look good again because collectors will remember 2010 BDP.

And the cycle continues.

For example, if they sold $8m on TC and $10m on BC, and only sell $5m of BDP when in an average year they would sell $7m, they've made up that $2m loss in extra sales of TC and BC.

BTw, BRian, thanks for shipping me the UFC pack and piece of actress dress. I don't remember why you sent it, but I appreciate it!

 

[Leaf]

[quote="Jeff N.":5e9a9gm0]

[quote="Jeff N.":5e9a9gm0]

[quote="Jeff N.":5e9a9gm0]

[quote="Jeff N.":5e9a9gm0][quote="frzg":5e9a9gm0]It's amazing that they call the buybacks a production error and can't admit that they were never going to be included. The Harper plans were announced on the 21st of October and the product ships out a few days later to distributors. They just realized the product was junk so they tried to get some hype knowing the whole time that they would have to do a wrapper redemption to give out the buybacks.

The wrapper redemption is just a marketing ploy to get people to open the product, it's not to 'correct a production error'.

If this is the case, why not state it's a wrapper redemption in the first place? It'll get people opening packs.

Simple, the busiest day of the product is the day of its release. Topps waits 1 week to announce the wrapper redemption which would force customers to bust additional boxes/cases to acquire said wrappers. Topps doesn't get additional sales at this point, but it allows the distributors and wholesalers to sell their product to keep them happy. But in this instance, too little, too late.

As of the day of release, everything's already sold. Topps has sold 100% of what they made. There's no benefit to Topps as to whether everyone buys the cards from the distributors or no one buys the cards from the distributors.

Now, there's an argument that could be made that Topps wants their distributors to do well, but I don't really think they care.

However, annoucing the redemption on the day of release is going to have little difference than annoucing it a week later. I was planning on buying a case when they got down to $400. I believe that this redemption is oging to keep the cases from hitting $400 anytime soon, so I bought the case at $465 (less $10 in eBay bucks I have coming to me, net price $455). The wrappers will be -- could be -- easily sold for $55, so the case still costs me $400.

I just don't see the impact -- other than the rock bottom of the cases not reaching as far as it did - if Topps announced this a week ago or yesterday.

Of course Topps cares. The less product the distributor can sell the less future product they can/will buy from Topps. It's in both parties best interest for the distributors to be able to sell as much as possible.

If one distributor goes out of business, there will be others Topps will sell to.[/quote:5e9a9gm0]

That's a little extreme. Of course Topps can always sell some product. Point is if their average distributor is sitting on 50% of what they bought in 2010 BC, that's cash they can't use to buy 2010 BDP or something else.[/quote:5e9a9gm0]

And it's 2010 BDP that someone else will order.

I understand your argument, and in a real world scenario, it would make sense. But these are baseball cards. Logic and reasoning have no presence here.[/quote:5e9a9gm0]
At this point...your last point isn't true. I have from sources that Topps hasn't getten a ton of orders for 2010 BDP. Sure, they have gotten some but the fact that people have no clue what they will be getting with all of the bait and switching going on is a huge factor. Less orders mean less product made which will lead to better value coming out as far as color parallels.

I expect that Topps will do right with BDP, but it will cost them a ton of missed revenue in extra cases they COULD have produced by not screwing up TC and BC. Like...to the point they could miss out on upwards of $2mil less in revenue from this product than they pocketed with TC and BC.

Even though people won't stop buying, they will order less upfront and it will hurt their bottom line.[/quote:5e9a9gm0]


BUT, they already made that money with BC and TC.

And, when BDP comes out and is SPed and looks like a good deal, then 2011 TC and BC will look good again because collectors will remember 2010 BDP.

And the cycle continues.

For example, if they sold $8m on TC and $10m on BC, and only sell $5m of BDP when in an average year they would sell $7m, they've made up that $2m loss in extra sales of TC and BC.

BTw, BRian, thanks for shipping me the UFC pack and piece of actress dress. I don't remember why you sent it, but I appreciate it![/quote:5e9a9gm0]

NO worries, Jeff.... It was either for advice/opinions or an FCB contest.
BG

 

[Leaf]

Also, its not about if Topps made more money. It is about the fact they have financially strangled EVERYONE in the distribution channel. The distributors and dealers are trying to "TAP OUT" and Topps won't release the chokehold.

Hopefully, they won't cause irreversible damage.
BG

 

[mancini79]

It's in Topps' best interest to make the distributors happy. Since Topps doesn't sell direct to the consumer, the distributor is the supply chain. If distributors are losing money on their product, they will shift their money elsewhere. Take BC for example. Dist. have $$ tied up in cases and either don't have $$ to buy more product, or will take the risk and buy the competition (ITG, other sports, etc). Demand for cards are not inelastic. Saying that another distributor will make up the loss is incorrect. Why would anyone want to risk 2010 BDP if Topps has a history of having a losing product. In addition, there will be less total orders for the product and less $$ for Topps. Topps must find a way to increase BC demand.

 

[js0000001]

I bought a case of Bowman jumbos for $250 around Christmas year. I think BC was going for about $300 a case at that point.

Why did we not have this crisis then?
Why was there no wrapper redemption last year?
Just how cheap can 2010 chrome products get?

In the end this might be a boon for collector if we/I can buy in at rock bottom.

 

[mancini79]

I bought a case of Bowman jumbos for $250 around Christmas year. I think BC was going for about $300 a case at that point.

Why did we not have this crisis then?
Why was there no wrapper redemption last year?
Just how cheap can 2010 chrome products get?

In the end this might be a boon for collector if we/I can buy in at rock bottom.

I'll try to answer some of those questions:
1. I don't recall those products tanking as fast as 2010 BC. Plus, distributors were sitting on a lot less cases last year.
2. No wrapper cuz there was no crisis.
3. Wait until the wrapper redemptions expire. BC could be a deal 4/1/2011. After the redemption and just before the season starts.

 

[Crash Davis]

[quote="Jeff N.":3mh7pr4j]

[quote="Jeff N.":3mh7pr4j]

[quote="Jeff N.":3mh7pr4j][quote="frzg":3mh7pr4j]It's amazing that they call the buybacks a production error and can't admit that they were never going to be included. The Harper plans were announced on the 21st of October and the product ships out a few days later to distributors. They just realized the product was junk so they tried to get some hype knowing the whole time that they would have to do a wrapper redemption to give out the buybacks.

The wrapper redemption is just a marketing ploy to get people to open the product, it's not to 'correct a production error'.

If this is the case, why not state it's a wrapper redemption in the first place? It'll get people opening packs.

Simple, the busiest day of the product is the day of its release. Topps waits 1 week to announce the wrapper redemption which would force customers to bust additional boxes/cases to acquire said wrappers. Topps doesn't get additional sales at this point, but it allows the distributors and wholesalers to sell their product to keep them happy. But in this instance, too little, too late.

As of the day of release, everything's already sold. Topps has sold 100% of what they made. There's no benefit to Topps as to whether everyone buys the cards from the distributors or no one buys the cards from the distributors.

Now, there's an argument that could be made that Topps wants their distributors to do well, but I don't really think they care.

However, annoucing the redemption on the day of release is going to have little difference than annoucing it a week later. I was planning on buying a case when they got down to $400. I believe that this redemption is oging to keep the cases from hitting $400 anytime soon, so I bought the case at $465 (less $10 in eBay bucks I have coming to me, net price $455). The wrappers will be -- could be -- easily sold for $55, so the case still costs me $400.

I just don't see the impact -- other than the rock bottom of the cases not reaching as far as it did - if Topps announced this a week ago or yesterday.

Of course Topps cares. The less product the distributor can sell the less future product they can/will buy from Topps. It's in both parties best interest for the distributors to be able to sell as much as possible.

If one distributor goes out of business, there will be others Topps will sell to.[/quote:3mh7pr4j]

That's a little extreme. Of course Topps can always sell some product. Point is if their average distributor is sitting on 50% of what they bought in 2010 BC, that's cash they can't use to buy 2010 BDP or something else.[/quote:3mh7pr4j]

And it's 2010 BDP that someone else will order.

I understand your argument, and in a real world scenario, it would make sense. But these are baseball cards. Logic and reasoning have no presence here.[/quote:3mh7pr4j]

This is the real world.... The massive dump Topps took on the market with these massively produced items is damaging the wholesale sales of ALL trading cards. There are 2 distirbutors on the verge of going out of business over this irresponsibility (theirs coulped with Topps').

I can tell you now that orders will be light for the forseeable future due to this cluster.

To say that the wholesale market isn't important is extremely short sighted and is obviously not accurate to anyone who has operated in all parts of the industry. The wholesale market has been crushed by Topps Chrome, bowman Chrome, Topps Update (and Bowman PLatinum when it tanks).

BG


BG[/quote:3mh7pr4j]

Bowman Platinum has a terrible checklist. There's no way that anybody could've thought that it would be at or above cost.

 

[Crash Davis]

It's in Topps' best interest to make the distributors happy. Since Topps doesn't sell direct to the consumer, the distributor is the supply chain. If distributors are losing money on their product, they will shift their money elsewhere. Take BC for example. Dist. have $$ tied up in cases and either don't have $$ to buy more product, or will take the risk and buy the competition (ITG, other sports, etc). Demand for cards are not inelastic. Saying that another distributor will make up the loss is incorrect. Why would anyone want to risk 2010 BDP if Topps has a history of having a losing product. In addition, there will be less total orders for the product and less $$ for Topps. Topps must find a way to increase BC demand.

Topps overproduced because that's what their pre-orders dictated.

Shame on all of you for buying in to the Strasburg hype. Shame on the Distributors. Shame on the end-consumers.

If it was the other way around, and Strasburg won ROY and Cy Young, and walked on water, these converstaions would not be taking place no matter how many cases were produced.

To say that Topps put a stranglehold on the industry is ridiculous. Nobody put a gun to any distributors head to buy this crap in obscene quantity. They got greedy, just like everybody else did.

Just like when everybody bought beanie babies for $5 because they thought they would be worth more money in two months when the new "retirements" were announced. Did TY put a stranglehold on all of the Hallmark stores who upped their orders from 10 dozen to 100 dozen because their customers demanded more Beanie Babies? Nope.

Greed should be a four-letter word when it comes to the baseball card industry and what it all boils down to me is greed.

Those who don't learn from history are bound to repeat it.

 

[NECpilgrims8]

It's in Topps' best interest to make the distributors happy. Since Topps doesn't sell direct to the consumer, the distributor is the supply chain. If distributors are losing money on their product, they will shift their money elsewhere. Take BC for example. Dist. have $$ tied up in cases and either don't have $$ to buy more product, or will take the risk and buy the competition (ITG, other sports, etc). Demand for cards are not inelastic. Saying that another distributor will make up the loss is incorrect. Why would anyone want to risk 2010 BDP if Topps has a history of having a losing product. In addition, there will be less total orders for the product and less $$ for Topps. Topps must find a way to increase BC demand.

Topps overproduced because that's what their pre-orders dictated.

Shame on all of you for buying in to the Strasburg hype. Shame on the Distributors. Shame on the end-consumers.

If it was the other way around, and Strasburg won ROY and Cy Young, and walked on water, these converstaions would not be taking place no matter how many cases were produced.

To say that Topps put a stranglehold on the industry is ridiculous. Nobody put a gun to any distributors head to buy this crap in obscene quantity. They got greedy, just like everybody else did.

Just like when everybody bought beanie babies for $5 because they thought they would be worth more money in two months when the new "retirements" were announced. Did TY put a stranglehold on all of the Hallmark stores who upped their orders from 10 dozen to 100 dozen because their customers demanded more Beanie Babies? Nope.

Greed should be a four-letter word when it comes to the baseball card industry and what it all boils down to me is greed.

Those who don't learn from history are bound to repeat it.

How much 2010 Bowman Chrome did you buy?

 

[Crash Davis]

It's in Topps' best interest to make the distributors happy. Since Topps doesn't sell direct to the consumer, the distributor is the supply chain. If distributors are losing money on their product, they will shift their money elsewhere. Take BC for example. Dist. have $$ tied up in cases and either don't have $$ to buy more product, or will take the risk and buy the competition (ITG, other sports, etc). Demand for cards are not inelastic. Saying that another distributor will make up the loss is incorrect. Why would anyone want to risk 2010 BDP if Topps has a history of having a losing product. In addition, there will be less total orders for the product and less $$ for Topps. Topps must find a way to increase BC demand.

Topps overproduced because that's what their pre-orders dictated.

Shame on all of you for buying in to the Strasburg hype. Shame on the Distributors. Shame on the end-consumers.

If it was the other way around, and Strasburg won ROY and Cy Young, and walked on water, these converstaions would not be taking place no matter how many cases were produced.

To say that Topps put a stranglehold on the industry is ridiculous. Nobody put a gun to any distributors head to buy this crap in obscene quantity. They got greedy, just like everybody else did.

Just like when everybody bought beanie babies for $5 because they thought they would be worth more money in two months when the new "retirements" were announced. Did TY put a stranglehold on all of the Hallmark stores who upped their orders from 10 dozen to 100 dozen because their customers demanded more Beanie Babies? Nope.

Greed should be a four-letter word when it comes to the baseball card industry and what it all boils down to me is greed.

Those who don't learn from history are bound to repeat it.

How much 2010 Bowman Chrome did you buy?

I bought two cases of Bowman Chrome. I did OK. I didn't buy them to make money and I didn't buy something that I was unable to afford, whether I won or lost.

I did; however, buy a lot of beanie babies 10 years ago and got my ass handed to me. Ever since then I've learned not to spend more than I can afford to lose because I realize that buying boxes and cases is generally a losing proposition and should be for entertainment purposes only.

 

[Wes]

It's in Topps' best interest to make the distributors happy. Since Topps doesn't sell direct to the consumer, the distributor is the supply chain. If distributors are losing money on their product, they will shift their money elsewhere. Take BC for example. Dist. have $$ tied up in cases and either don't have $$ to buy more product, or will take the risk and buy the competition (ITG, other sports, etc). Demand for cards are not inelastic. Saying that another distributor will make up the loss is incorrect. Why would anyone want to risk 2010 BDP if Topps has a history of having a losing product. In addition, there will be less total orders for the product and less $$ for Topps. Topps must find a way to increase BC demand.

Topps overproduced because that's what their pre-orders dictated.

Shame on all of you for buying in to the Strasburg hype. Shame on the Distributors. Shame on the end-consumers.

If it was the other way around, and Strasburg won ROY and Cy Young, and walked on water, these converstaions would not be taking place no matter how many cases were produced.

To say that Topps put a stranglehold on the industry is ridiculous. Nobody put a gun to any distributors head to buy this crap in obscene quantity. They got greedy, just like everybody else did.

Just like when everybody bought beanie babies for $5 because they thought they would be worth more money in two months when the new "retirements" were announced. Did TY put a stranglehold on all of the Hallmark stores who upped their orders from 10 dozen to 100 dozen because their customers demanded more Beanie Babies? Nope.

Greed should be a four-letter word when it comes to the baseball card industry and what it all boils down to me is greed.

Those who don't learn from history are bound to repeat it.

More blame lies with the distributors and Topps than with the end-consumers. The amount of inventory left in distributor warehouses is proof that end-consumers didn't demand this much product.

 

[bmc398]

[quote="Jeff N.":15bc2mbe]

[quote="Jeff N.":15bc2mbe]

[quote="Jeff N.":15bc2mbe]

[quote="Jeff N.":15bc2mbe][quote="frzg":15bc2mbe]It's amazing that they call the buybacks a production error and can't admit that they were never going to be included. The Harper plans were announced on the 21st of October and the product ships out a few days later to distributors. They just realized the product was junk so they tried to get some hype knowing the whole time that they would have to do a wrapper redemption to give out the buybacks.

The wrapper redemption is just a marketing ploy to get people to open the product, it's not to 'correct a production error'.

If this is the case, why not state it's a wrapper redemption in the first place? It'll get people opening packs.

Simple, the busiest day of the product is the day of its release. Topps waits 1 week to announce the wrapper redemption which would force customers to bust additional boxes/cases to acquire said wrappers. Topps doesn't get additional sales at this point, but it allows the distributors and wholesalers to sell their product to keep them happy. But in this instance, too little, too late.

As of the day of release, everything's already sold. Topps has sold 100% of what they made. There's no benefit to Topps as to whether everyone buys the cards from the distributors or no one buys the cards from the distributors.

Now, there's an argument that could be made that Topps wants their distributors to do well, but I don't really think they care.

However, annoucing the redemption on the day of release is going to have little difference than annoucing it a week later. I was planning on buying a case when they got down to $400. I believe that this redemption is oging to keep the cases from hitting $400 anytime soon, so I bought the case at $465 (less $10 in eBay bucks I have coming to me, net price $455). The wrappers will be -- could be -- easily sold for $55, so the case still costs me $400.

I just don't see the impact -- other than the rock bottom of the cases not reaching as far as it did - if Topps announced this a week ago or yesterday.

Of course Topps cares. The less product the distributor can sell the less future product they can/will buy from Topps. It's in both parties best interest for the distributors to be able to sell as much as possible.

If one distributor goes out of business, there will be others Topps will sell to.[/quote:15bc2mbe]

That's a little extreme. Of course Topps can always sell some product. Point is if their average distributor is sitting on 50% of what they bought in 2010 BC, that's cash they can't use to buy 2010 BDP or something else.[/quote:15bc2mbe]

And it's 2010 BDP that someone else will order.

I understand your argument, and in a real world scenario, it would make sense. But these are baseball cards. Logic and reasoning have no presence here.[/quote:15bc2mbe]

This is the real world.... The massive dump Topps took on the market with these massively produced items is damaging the wholesale sales of ALL trading cards. There are 2 distirbutors on the verge of going out of business over this irresponsibility (theirs coulped with Topps').

I can tell you now that orders will be light for the forseeable future due to this cluster.

To say that the wholesale market isn't important is extremely short sighted and is obviously not accurate to anyone who has operated in all parts of the industry. The wholesale market has been crushed by Topps Chrome, bowman Chrome, Topps Update (and Bowman PLatinum when it tanks).

BG


BG[/quote:15bc2mbe]

Bowman Platinum has a terrible checklist. There's no way that anybody could've thought that it would be at or above cost.[/quote:15bc2mbe]
If there is no bait and switch...the checklist isn't that bad.

Big if....but it looks like there is a good mix of old prospects and new in this product. Couple that with USA and vet auto/gu cards this will be an interesting product. Its no BChrome, but I applaud their want to try something new.

 

[SportsCardMojo]

I keep telling you guys, what's happening now is very similar to what happened to our economy these past 5 years. Strasburg was the catalyst that started the card boom. Keep in mind that Strasburg did not only affect baseball, but he had an affect on the entire card industry. Topps is like the mortgage company. They were trying to keep up with demand while at the same time, trying to make the most of the opportunity. Strasburg got hurt, pre-orders were being cancelled, and people started to grow cold to what was projected to come out. I mean seriously...think about this. Let's say Topps made as much product as they did last year. Most of those cases would have been accounted for before release. And there would have been a different problem in the secondary markets. Cards would be so overly inflated, all of us would be complaining about Topps not making enough cards.

Oh...and the wrapper redemption is like a Stimulus Package.

 

[matfanofold]

I keep telling you guys, what's happening now is very similar to what happened to our economy these past 5 years. Strasburg was the catalyst that started the card boom. Keep in mind that Strasburg did not only affect baseball, but he had an affect on the entire card industry. Topps is like the mortgage company. They were trying to keep up with demand while at the same time, trying to make the most of the opportunity. Strasburg got hurt, pre-orders were being cancelled, and people started to grow cold to what was projected to come out. I mean seriously...think about this. Let's say Topps made as much product as they did last year. Most of those cases would have been accounted for before release. And there would have been a different problem in the secondary markets. Cards would be so overly inflated, all of us would be complaining about Topps not making enough cards.

Oh...and the wrapper redemption is like a Stimulus Package.

Lol, not quite but I see what your saying...

The morgage companies went under because of all the loans they were giving out to people who could not afford to pay the bill(and they knew it) actually creating a 'demand' that should not have been. But I agree it is somewhat a microcosm in that Strasburg mania artificially inflated the 'bubble' of our hobby, and when he went down the bubble went bust. And you cant really blame topps for that. As for the stimulus package, well atleast we are not paying for that via taxes... However, some might argue that part of there initial purchase dollars went to it because they thought the auto's were going to be packed out.

 

[Leaf]

I see it as a 50/50 fault between topps and the distributors ...

Distributors and dealers are big boys and need to order responsibly, but topps are essentially the industry's grownups...

Just because the kids want to eat dessert for every meal doesn't make it best for all involved.

Shame on the dealers who over ordered...

Shame on topps for showing no self control and not telling the kids they had enough sweets...

What makes this worse is topps' unwillingness to help these dealers (extended terms, order cutting ability or return privilege on some amount of product)...

A bartender is partially legally responsible if they serve too much alcohol to someone and it results in the patrons accident... Topps has the same responsibility, in my opinion.
Judgement is everything.

BG

 

[ThoseBackPages]

Gordon Gecko was wrong

Greed is NOT good

 

[Leaf]

Greed IS good if it leads to innovation... However, within the monopoly that is baseball cards , it seems innovation has given way to complacency. BG