Topps screw it up again - Bowman Platinum

[JoshHamilton]

[quote="A_Pharis":366mfjio][quote="gmarutiak":366mfjio]
This is a joke, right?!?! Topps proudly advertises themselves as being the exclusive manufacturer of MLB cards, minor league cards, and Team USA cards. If you want to buy a card of a current player in a uniform, you can only do so from one manufacturer. Mono = One. Thus, the monopoly. How are you not getting this? ::facepalm::

So if Burger King made a new type of burger and patented the process of making it and everyone chose that burger over any other burger.. then Burger King has a monopoly? I mean, you can buy a burger almost anywhere, but only THAT type of burger at burger king.

Monopolies don't work that way. ANyone can make an unlicensed product -- it's your CHOICE not to buy unlicensed. Not a monopoly.

Man, you are on a roll with sophomoric takes on this hobby. :lol:

He's correct though. Other people are allowed to produce baseball cards, just not major league ones. MLB is a brand.

Okay, lead me to all the 2010 unlicensed sets of current MLB players.

No one took the leap and bought a MLBPA licence. I assure you that such a licence is for sale, and it isn't terribly expensive.[/quote:366mfjio]

If you could back this up with solid evidence, it would shut a lot of people up, myself included. I'm not saying you're lying. You're more "in the know" than the average collector, obviously.

CoughPressPassshouldapplyforalicensecough[/quote:366mfjio]

Edit. You mean an MLBP license. Topps doesn't even have an MLBPA license

 

[cgilmo]

yes, the MLBPA licence is available


The MLBP licence is locked down for the next few years as long as the status quo does not change.

 

[JoshHamilton]

yes, the MLBPA licence is available


The MLBP licence is locked down for the next few years as long as the status quo does not change.

Without the MLBP license, it won't do much good only securing an MLBPA license. Ask Upper Deck

 

[sportscardtheory]

yes, the MLBPA licence is available


The MLBP licence is locked down for the next few years as long as the status quo does not change.

Like JoshHamilton said, clearly having that license is pointless since MLB will take you to court for making cards with it. It's a toxic license that is basically worthless now, so to use it in this discussion is pretty pointless.

 

[thefatguy]

While the case focuses on pro football, the outcome is expected to have a significant impact on other pro sports leagues as well – basketball, hockey, soccer, stock-car racing, tennis. Even major league baseball, despite its antitrust immunity, has been sued over joint promotion of fan goods. And while the case focuses on the joint marketing of fan gear, the outcome may well reach beyond the vending enterprise to at least some facets of the competition on the field or court. That is because combined activity by league owners is not confined to marketing fan gear. (Beyond sports, the principles at stake in this dispute may well affect the legal future of other joint ventures that take integrated action, because the Court may decide more broadly than the sports context.)

I'd consider cards fan gear.

MLB has an exemption, does MLBP? I'd see UD and Panini having a leg to stand on.

 

[A_Pharis]

It may not be a monopoly, but it may violate antitrust laws (although baseball is exempt...for now). Exclusive agreements eliminate competition.

Here's the major decision this year. Apparel mfr American Needle went after the NFL and NFL Properties for their exclusive agreement with Reebok.

The National Football League (NFL) is an unincorporated association of 32 separately owned professional football teams. Through National Football League Properties (NFLP) the NFL develops, licenses and markets certain intellectual property owned by the NFL teams. Until December 2000, the NFLP licensed its intellectual property to many different apparel manufacturers (including American Needle). In December 2000, NFLP agreed to provide an exclusive license for the production of its apparel to a single company Reebok, International Ltd. American Needle challenged the NFLP’s use of an exclusive license as a Section 1 Sherman Act violation. In response, the NFL and NFLP asserted that NFLP is a single entity, so a claim of anticompetitive activity can only be brought under Section 2 of the Sherman Act.

The Supreme Court, ruling unanimously in American Needle v. NFL (08-661), put at least a temporary end to the speculation — at least to this extent: a claim that joint action is the only way to promote the “brand” of “NFL football” was simply but firmly rejected. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that “defining the product as ‘NFL football’ puts the cart before the horse. Of course, the NFL produces NFL football, but that does not mean that cooperation amongst NFL teams is immune from [Sherman Act] scrutiny. Members of any cartel could insist that their cooperation is necessary to produce the ‘cartel product’ and compete with other products.”
If promoting pro football with the consuming public is the economic goal, “there would be nothing to prevent each of the teams from making its own market decisions relating to purchases of apparel and headwear, to the sale of such items, and to the granting of licenses to use its trademarks,” Stevens said. “Competitors,” he added, quoting colleague Justice Sonia Sotomayor when she was a judge on the Second Circuit Court, ” ‘cannot simply get around’ antitrust liability by acting ‘through a third-party intermediary or ‘joint venture.’ ”
The concluding part of the opinion represented an attempt to narrow the scope of the ruling, suggesting that the NFL and other pro leagues may well be entitled to quite broad antitrust immunity for such joint efforts as producing and scheduling games, taking steps to maintain “a competitive balance” between teams, and acting to ensure that the sport makes money. The actual legality of any joint practice, the Court made clear, was not being decided in this case — including the specific tactic of joint marketing of the right to use team trademarks. Each “collective decision” a league chooses to make, the opinion concluded, is to be judged by an antitrust “rule of reason” — a flexible standard that is keyed to particular facts and circumstances.
The trademark licensing case now returns to the Seventh Circuit, and very likely back to District Court, for a trial on whether that scheme is, in fact, an “unreasonable restraint of trade” in the way that it actually operates. The outcome was not foreordained by Monday’s ruling.

Nice post, Jesse. So this basically says that there are aspects that can flex to certain application as decided by people way beyond anyone here on the board can speculate. Interesting to see where that would go.

 

[cgilmo]

yes, the MLBPA licence is available


The MLBP licence is locked down for the next few years as long as the status quo does not change.

Like JoshHamilton said, clearly having that license is pointless since MLB will take you to court for making cards with it. It's a toxic license that is basically worthless now.

It all depends on how you do it.


I think good cards can be made without a mlbp licence. The reason it didn't work for UD is rumored to be pressure from the NFL and NHL who they wanted to keep deals with.

 

[thefatguy]

Under a 1984 Supreme Court ruling (Copperweld v. Independence Tube), Section 1 does not apply to a parent corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary acting jointly because they are part of a single whole, a “single entity,” and thus cannot be thought to get together for concerted action. The American Needle lawsuit does not challenge that basic premise. What it does test is whether a pro sports league, made up of independently owned teams, can qualify as a “single entity” under Section 1 when the league and its members act jointly — at least when the joint enterprise is refusing to compete in selling trademarked goods.
^BINGO^

Again, I know MLB is antitrust exempt, but is MLB Properties?

 

[Bob Loblaw]

yes, the MLBPA licence is available


The MLBP licence is locked down for the next few years as long as the status quo does not change.

Like JoshHamilton said, clearly having that license is pointless since MLB will take you to court for making cards with it. It's a toxic license that is basically worthless now, so to use it in this discussion is pretty pointless.

I disagree... if you remove the logos -- like the food issue cards of the 80s and 90s -- you're fine.

 

[JoshHamilton]

yes, the MLBPA licence is available


The MLBP licence is locked down for the next few years as long as the status quo does not change.

Like JoshHamilton said, clearly having that license is pointless since MLB will take you to court for making cards with it. It's a toxic license that is basically worthless now, so to use it in this discussion is pretty pointless.

They will take you to court if you use team nicknames/logos (which the MLBP license covers). This is what happened to UD.

A good portion of collectors will not buy cards featuring airbrushed/obscured logos. Hence the problem.

 

[Bob Loblaw]

yes, the MLBPA licence is available


The MLBP licence is locked down for the next few years as long as the status quo does not change.

Like JoshHamilton said, clearly having that license is pointless since MLB will take you to court for making cards with it. It's a toxic license that is basically worthless now, so to use it in this discussion is pretty pointless.

They will take you to court if you use team nicknames/logos (which the MLBP license covers). This is what happened to UD.

A good portion of collectors will not buy cards featuring airbrushed/obscured logos. Hence the problem.

I disagree. People bought Donruss' products quite a bit. Donruss didn't fully obscure, but I don't think that was an issue.

Honestly, and I say this with no malice whatsoever -- if Leaf put out Certified, with no logos on the cards, and "PHILADELPHIA" and "FLORIDA" and "TAMPA BAY" as the teams without any refernce to Phillies, Marlins, or Rays, as well as obviouly the other 28 teams. . . I think it would sell well. Assuming, of course, they had a MLBPA license. You can't trademark a city.

 

[thefatguy]

Jeff, if you remember what was sent to UD from MLB, no use of any unis OR COLORS can be used. So bsaically all the cards must look like this:





More studff from the American Needle case

Gee...where does this sound familiar

Initially, NFL Properties gave licenses to a number of separate vendors to produce bill caps and stocking caps.. One of those vendors was American Needle, Inc., a company located in Buffalo Grove, Ill. For 20 years, it had a license to produce NFL team caps. In 2000, the league and its members concluded that team products were not doing very well commercially, and they decided the answer was to give a license to a single vendor. They agreed not to compete with each other in this marketing enterprise. Ultimately, in May 2001, Reebok International Ltd., a well-known producer of sports goods, won an exclusive license, lasting ten years, to sell team headwear. One of the documents in the Supreme Court case quotes a Reebok executive as saying later that caps that had sold for $19.99 a few years earlier were selling for $30.

Whats to stop Topps from jacking up prices?

 

[JoshHamilton]

yes, the MLBPA licence is available


The MLBP licence is locked down for the next few years as long as the status quo does not change.

Like JoshHamilton said, clearly having that license is pointless since MLB will take you to court for making cards with it. It's a toxic license that is basically worthless now, so to use it in this discussion is pretty pointless.

I disagree... if you remove the logos -- like the food issue cards of the 80s and 90s -- you're fine.

Correct.

But it's difficult to use stuff like Kraft and Nabisco cards to judge the popularity of non-MLBP licensed sets. All of those were regional/mail in/premiums.

There hasn't been a nationally distributed unlicensed set featuring only MLB players. But I'll safely guess that they wouldn't sell as well as a mainstream licensed set

 

[Bob Loblaw]

Jeff, if you remember what was sent to UD from MLB, no use of any unis OR COLORS can be used. So bsaically all the cards must look like this:





More studff from the American Needle case

Gee...where does this sound familiar

Initially, NFL Properties gave licenses to a number of separate vendors to produce bill caps and stocking caps.. One of those vendors was American Needle, Inc., a company located in Buffalo Grove, Ill. For 20 years, it had a license to produce NFL team caps. In 2000, the league and its members concluded that team products were not doing very well commercially, and they decided the answer was to give a license to a single vendor. They agreed not to compete with each other in this marketing enterprise. Ultimately, in May 2001, Reebok International Ltd., a well-known producer of sports goods, won an exclusive license, lasting ten years, to sell team headwear. One of the documents in the Supreme Court case quotes a Reebok executive as saying later that caps that had sold for $19.99 a few years earlier were selling for $30.

Whats to stop Topps from jacking up prices?

First off, that was a very nice look in 1992. I rocked the long sleeve polo/shorts in college as well.

Second, that was the agreement that Topps and UD entered into. . . while I understand that there are cases indicating you can copyright a color scheme, I think it'll be tough to fight if 1) the company has the MLBPA license and 2) they've made a good faith attempt to obscure all logos. I would argue that any color scheme would be fair use of the licensed image. I don't think either company truly used good faith to obscure logos.

Also, I said a few pages back that I suspected that MLBP would have some sort of a ceiling price clause in the contract, in that the direct cost of product could not be raised over a certain percentage per year.

 

[Bob Loblaw]

yes, the MLBPA licence is available


The MLBP licence is locked down for the next few years as long as the status quo does not change.

Like JoshHamilton said, clearly having that license is pointless since MLB will take you to court for making cards with it. It's a toxic license that is basically worthless now, so to use it in this discussion is pretty pointless.

I disagree... if you remove the logos -- like the food issue cards of the 80s and 90s -- you're fine.

Correct.

But it's difficult to use stuff like Kraft and Nabisco cards to judge the popularity of non-MLBP licensed sets. All of those were regional/mail in/premiums.

There hasn't been a nationally distributed unlicensed set featuring only MLB players. But I'll safely guess that they wouldn't sell as well as a mainstream licensed set

At this point, ANYTHING would sell better than Topps.

 

[JoshHamilton]

[quote="Jeff N.":2fhjhf1q]

yes, the MLBPA licence is available


The MLBP licence is locked down for the next few years as long as the status quo does not change.

Like JoshHamilton said, clearly having that license is pointless since MLB will take you to court for making cards with it. It's a toxic license that is basically worthless now, so to use it in this discussion is pretty pointless.

I disagree... if you remove the logos -- like the food issue cards of the 80s and 90s -- you're fine.

Correct.

But it's difficult to use stuff like Kraft and Nabisco cards to judge the popularity of non-MLBP licensed sets. All of those were regional/mail in/premiums.

There hasn't been a nationally distributed unlicensed set featuring only MLB players. But I'll safely guess that they wouldn't sell as well as a mainstream licensed set

At this point, ANYTHING would sell better than Topps.[/quote:2fhjhf1q]

There are still some collectors who will flat out refuse to buy "unlicensed" cards. Hofautos and uniquebaseballcards (big surprise there) are two examples I can think of.

Myself included, to an extent. I don't like cards with airbrushed logos. Not because the manufacturer doesn't have a certain license, but because I find the cards unattractive

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

There are still some collectors who will flat out refuse to buy "unlicensed" cards. Hofautos and uniquebaseballcards (big surprise there) are two examples I can think of.

Myself included, to an extent. I don't like cards with airbrushed logos. Not because the manufacturer doesn't have a certain license, but because I find the cards unattractive

For the record I only think the MLBP license needs to be applied judiciously and not simply applied to players (or even non-players?) who were never active on an MLB roster. There needs to be truth and accuracy in a product, a license shouldn't be available for someone to mislead the buyer.

Other than that people shouldn't drink Pepsi simply because its licensed as the 'Official Soft Drink of Major League Baseball', people need to drink Pepsi because they enjoy it. If not, drink another (unlicensed) drink and the MLB license is worthless to you as it applies to soft drinks.

 

[200lbhockeyplayer]

To be fair, MLBP runs all of the MLB properties...including USA Baseball, Minor League Baseball, and of course Major League Baseball. The MiLB players are controlled by their MLB clubs and therefore MLBP by extension.

While the "rookie card" situation in baseball is blurry at best, the market created it.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

While the "rookie card" situation in baseball is blurry at best, the market created it.

Consider the people most likely to drink Pepsi only because Pepsi is licensed. Take the license away from Pepsi and there will be fewer people buying it, but these people never liked Pepsi to begin with. Doesn't mean there isn't an alternative though.

 

[Leaf]

[quote="A_Pharis":3sp45k7z]

I don't think anything your saying is wrong, or incorrect except when you apply it to a baseball card store. Just because you half run some kind of computer company (who hasn't these days?) doesn't mean you've got all the solutions. The only one you've attempted to offer is "diversify." I don't need business school to know that but you can't diversify in baseball cards buy selling yugio because the same people who buy baseball cards will most likely not buy yugio.

Nice shot at me, but it's all diversity. You are banking on a card store only having baseball collectors come in.

Out of curiosity, do you run your own business? And I mean a business. I mean with contractual clients and a CFO. I happen to take a lot of pride in a company comprised of my brother and myself that provides contractual services in the amount that we do and provides purchasing through a major manufacturer in excess of $300k a year. And I only say that to disperse your idea that an IT agency is the same thing as the "Company Computer Guy" skit on SNL.

Ive been reading this exchange with interest.

The fact is that distributors, hobby stores, show dealers and internet retailers all must make responsible decisions.
Their purchasing decisions are not Topps' fault. They should dramatically reduce orders going forward if they are unhappy with content (checklist shenanigans), production quality, customer service or anything else.

With that being said:

IF Topps put out products of substandard quality (production) with full knowledge of such, THAT would be completely unacceptable.

IF Topps is diluting content due the monopolistic enviornment they have been awarded (however it came to pass), THIS would be at least unacceptable if not disgusting.

IF Topps is putting product in retail 1 month prior to hobby and that hurts hobby stores and dealers to the benefit of retail, THAT would be unacceptable.

With all that being said, Hobby dealers should not complain with their voices anymore. They've done it for 3 months and Topps has done little to show they care (short of some 5 card packs that cost them under $1 to make).

Hobby dealers (and collectors for that matter) should vote with their wallets.
Trading cards are not a "need", they are a "want".

All MANUFACTURERS INCLUDING TOPPS AND MYSELF (LEAF) BETTER REALIZE THIS AND ACT IN A WAY CONSISTENT WITH APPRECIATING OUR CUSTOMERS AND TRYING TO KEEP TRADING CARDS COLLECTIBLE. Recent overproduction and behavior in the market have done substantial harm, in my opinion. I promise to do my part to fix the industry. Will the others do the same?

BG

BG - you're never one to shy away from screaming atop your soap box; however, I find it amusing that you make some of the comments that you do (and I'm sure you find my comments equally as amusing so touche).

Topps does not have a monopoly on the baseball card market. ITG and Panini have made baseball card products. UD was supposed to but they canned it. Shyt, you even sold autographs to ITG. So you know the whole "monopolistic" comment is inaccurate.

As an owner of a business that manufactures trading cards, you are in business to make money. The more money the better. Integrity is highly subjective. I'm not saying you don't have any or some, it's obvious that you do, and it's obvious that you care about the hobby. You always seem to have an opinion and that's great. You're an insider. Your opinion is more realistic than most people's. But I think you're not being entirely truthful here.

Herein lies my problem - Topps actually tried to do something FOR the collector and they are getting crucified. Yes the product was released to retail chains on time; however, the hits in retail are always few and far between, and most people prefer hobby over retail. This is not a case like Bowman Chrome where there are exclusive green xfractors or purple refractors, both of which are ultimately worthless anyway. People seem to be glossing over that fact. Is it because they didn't get the first Miguel Sano autograph up on eBay but the guy who bought the retail blaster from Target did? Sounds like sour grapes to me.

So by the sheer length of this thread, which I suspect contains quite a bit of bitching and moaning on behalf of so many people who probably wouldn't have bought but one box or a few packs of Bowman Platinum to begin with, it has become clear to me that if the entire hobby consisted of only those who bitch and moan about every single issue with every Topps product, it would be in a really dark place by now. Incidentally, by reading these boards the past few months, if I didn't know any better (and never left the house) it would seem as if the sky was falling on the hobby.

But luckily, the hobby does not consist solely of the registered users of this site.

Nope. There are people out there - kids, parents, grandparents, uncles, aunts, friends, teachers, etc. - who will go in to Target or Walmart and buy a retail box or pack of Bowman Platinum, or whatever, and won't give a rats ass whether they pull the best autograph or even an autograph at all. In fact, there are those who still collect for the sheer enjoyment of it all. Kids who still get excited when they pull that game-jersey card that wouldn't be a satisfactory pull for those of you who don't know when to say when.

I mean, seriously. It's pretty sad that people are getting bent out of shape because Topps chose to market a single hobby pack of Bowman Platinum with a few assorted Bowman retail packs in a value box.

WHO CARES?!

What really bothers me is the fact that people are saying the industry is broken. It needs to be fixed.

Really?

I'm intrigued, Brian, by how you plan on "fixing" the industry.

But that's not for discussion here right, because this is a thread about Bowman Platinum hobby packs being inserted in retail value boxes.[/quote:3sp45k7z]

Thanks for your unbiased reply (lol).... But seriously, your questions are fair...

#1-Topps DOES have a monopoly on baseball cards featuring MLB players in uniform. Due to the alleged MLBPA GLA (group licensing agreement), they cannot use more than 2 current major leaguers in a year. This is blantant monopoly and THIS WILL CHANGE IN 2011 ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.. asll I can say for now)....

#2- I appreciate the collector thoughts on Platinum, however those $ are $ that WILL NOT be available for fledgling hobby stores nationwide. But, I do see both sides of this coin.

#3- The industry has been seriously harmed. The distributors of all levels (distributor, retailer, show dealer, internet retailer) have NO CONFIDENCE IN ANY PRODUCT FROM ANY COMPANY. This is a direct result of Bowman Chropme, Topps Chrome, and Topps Update (and maybe T206 and UFC 4). So yes and no, it is KIND OF BROKEN OR ON ITS WAY TO BEING BROKEN. I can do my part by not abusing customers and making a quantitiy less than demand in some cases to insure collectibility. IF Topps would sit down with Panini,UD,ITG, Press Pass, Leaf.. I bet we could all figure out some universal hobby improvements that could be industry wide. Consider it an invitation.

Lastly, my post was in reply to those who do not appreciate how putting Hobby packs in this repack a month before Hobby releases does hurt hobby dealers...

Thanks for the professional, rational and mature debate.
It is the only way things get better.
BG