CGC, The Only Slabbing Service Allowed Within The Walls Of C2E2/ECCC Until 2020

[mschmidt]

I don't know that the name brand of the clothing manufacturer will make or break a fans decision to buy a jersey. What would however is walking into a fan show with your jersey in hand, standing in line, and finding out when you arrive at the table that the athelete won't sign your jersey unless it's the name brand he's aligned with under his "new" endorsement contract.

 

Never happens right?

 

It happens all the time.

 

There are plenty of celebrities at comic book shows that have restrictions on what they will sign based on deals they have in place with various companies.

[VintageComics]

I guess I am having a hard time seeing the difference between this deal and any other business deal across a myriad of businesses. I just stripped away "comics" from the analysis and it brings me to the same destination each time. Maybe I am looking at it from the wrong perspective. How do you see it as different than any other exclusivity deal in business? Seriously. It's possible I am too locked into my analysis.

 

Again, from a business POV there is nothing wrong with the arrangement but the reason there is a discussion about at all is because it's not the same as choosing the clothing brand of jersey you are wearing.

 

As I stated earlier, IMO the reason this is different than a mass product like a jersey brand (not the sports team, obviously) or a pop choice is that this industry is a fraction of the size - so small in fact that many people know each other in one form or another and there is a polarizing effect among many people who are personally familiar and emotionally invested to people at both companies.

 

People don't get emotionally invested into a jersey brand. At least not normally.

 

 

 

 

 

[PovertyRow]

 

I guess I am having a hard time seeing the difference between this deal and any other business deal across a myriad of businesses. I just stripped away "comics" from the analysis and it brings me to the same destination each time. Maybe I am looking at it from the wrong perspective. How do you see it as different than any other exclusivity deal in business? Seriously. It's possible I am too locked into my analysis.

 

Actually I don't see it as different from other exclusivity deals, I just see it as a a spoon move on CGC's part. Maybe good "business sense" to those in business but a spoon move.

 

FD had said:

What has always amused me on this board is that people believe that comic book sales should be all sunshine and rainbows and kumbaya, ignoring the fact that it is a business. Exclusivity deals happen all the time in every aspect. I'm assuming all of you have no problem with your favorite sports team only wearing one company's clothing line - that's the exact same thing that is happening here.

 

This gives me pause in a couple of ways. First he is referring to "comic book sales" which has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion, since neither TPG is allowed to sell books. That is what I am talking about when I say business can skew perception. This is not nor has it ever been a discussion about comic book sales.

 

Next he uses the classic "denigrate/humiliate the opposition" attempt with his "all sunshine and rainbows and kumbaya". What? Is that supposed to humiliate me? Make me sound like a Brony? Comic collecting is a very communal hobby. Message boards like this attest to that. The fact people have, among other things, travelled internationally to get together, done tremendous favors for other collectors,,raised who know how many tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in charity threads here makes this something that deserves more than "sunshine,rainbows and kumbaya".

[aerischan]

I'm assuming all of you have no problem with your favorite sports team only wearing one company's clothing line - that's the exact same thing that is happening here.

 

This analogy literally makes no sense. It is a reflection of what happens when your head gets so much into the concept of business and business decisions that perspective is lost.

 

You are saying a sports fan is affected by a team being restricted to one brand of clothes in the same way a comic book collector is affected by a con being restricted to one TPG?

 

How do these two things even remotely equate? It sounds like you are saying comic collecting is a spectator sport.

 

 

 

Starter is a business, Majestic is a business.

 

If you walk into an MLB stadium and want to buy an officially licensed product such as a jersey....and MLB still has their contract for in stadium sales of jerseys with Majestic then your options for the jersey will be limited to Majestic. You may want a Starter jersey, may yearn for a Starter jersey, but if you enter their house, with their rules and their contracts in place you're buying a Majestic or nothing at all.

 

You can always go outside the stadium, to another vendor, or online and order through the mail and get whatever item you want made by whatever licensed manufacturer.

 

Make that a comic convention in a particular location, who can choose who they prefer to associate and align themselves with, and allow a booth presence to, and it's not all that different. However, the comic convention analogy is far more free and less restrictive than the original given that anyone is free to attend, take submissions, do business, etc. just not branded behind their own booth.

 

So any company's witnesses, affiliates, employees, partners, or persons in other roles may be there. The choice is still there in that respect, tempests in teapots excepted.

 

The way the analogy was phrased was the team wearing one brand. Nothing to do with selling/buying. Just a team wearing a brand of clothes. Which doesn't equate to comic book collecting in any way I can see. But if your explanation IS the case we are just restating the Coke/Pepsi thing.

 

I guess I am having a hard time seeing the difference between this deal and any other business deal across a myriad of businesses. I just stripped away "comics" from the analysis and it brings me to the same destination each time. Maybe I am looking at it from the wrong perspective. How do you see it as different than any other exclusivity deal in business? Seriously. It's possible I am too locked into my analysis.

I don't see it as being different compared to other exclusivity deals. That doesn't mean I have to like it as a consumer. If it was Voldie that had the exclusive, that actually sucks even more for me because I prefer to use CGC.

 

In my area, the phone and cable companies have monopolies and we only have two choices for internet - slow AT&T DSL and ok cable. I'm paying $100/month for my cable internet because that's pretty much the only option available if I want fast enough speed for streaming video. Even if you go to customer retentions, they're not willing to negotiate prices because they know they have a captive audience. Meanwhile, my cousin who lives where there's Verizon FiOS pays $50/month for 2x downstream and 10x upstream speed that I'm getting.

 

I got a "free" iPhone 7 with trade-in of my iPhone 6 because T-Mobile ran a promotion and both Verizon and AT&T followed suit. Hurray for competition.

[blazingbob]

Well, do you collect my little pony?

[comix4fun]

 

I guess I am having a hard time seeing the difference between this deal and any other business deal across a myriad of businesses. I just stripped away "comics" from the analysis and it brings me to the same destination each time. Maybe I am looking at it from the wrong perspective. How do you see it as different than any other exclusivity deal in business? Seriously. It's possible I am too locked into my analysis.

 

Actually I don't see it as different from other exclusivity deals, I just see it as a a spoon move on CGC's part. Maybe good "business sense" to those in business but a spoon move.

 

 

 

Ah, ok. I was going over the comparisons after you brought it up to see where they logically don't line up. I wasn't seeing it.

 

I think, for us as collectors and consumers, it's easy to try and think of the decisions and agreements and potential paths taken by companies we patronize as made in a vacuum, as if the only rationale that should be employed is one of friendship and courtesy and other rationale not related to dollars and cents.

 

However, I do my best in these situations to think of this company that we use and patronize not as a faceless entity that I want to be nice or kind or friendly, but as the sum of all its parts. By parts I mean everyone that works there, depends on that business to pay their bills, their rent, their food, their kids' braces, etc. All those people from the loading dock on up to the board room all reliant on the success and continued strength of the company and the brand for their own personal security and well-being.

 

Looking at it in that light I am having a hard time reconciling my desire that "CGC" be kind and gentle and collegial with their competitors and noting the real fact that their desire is survival and strength and security for all those people that work there, and their families, and the people that rely on them.

 

How in the world can I tell someone who's fully invested and reliant on a company's survival to make decisions based on how nice a decision it is instead of how solid a decision it is?

 

 

[dupont2005]

I wasn't talking about you. I'm just saying CGC is not above any of those tactics and have already done similar things in the past. People who had good working relationships with CGC for years were suddenly blacklisted for also offering their services to others in the industry. That's exactly like the scenario between competing conventions you presented. Now, if CGC's policies don't affect you in a negative way, that's fine. Let's not pretend they didn't affect others though. Kind of like how I'll never attend (and certainly not set up a booth at) any of the conventions mentioned so it doesn't affect me, but I can see how a vendor wouldn't like being given that ultimatum. I can still recognize things that don't affect me in a negative manner as bad.

 

Jeez ... can you can it with the hyperbole, please? Nobody has been blacklisted by CGC.

 

It's hilarious how transparent you are - if Voldemort were the ones initiating this deal, you'd be the first to applaud what a smart business move it was

I don't even know who Voldemort is. And I'm not saying CGC is evil, or even worse than the competition. What I'm saying is this kind of deal is bad for consumers and collectors. No matter how much you love CGC, you must be able to see that, right?

[mschmidt]

I wasn't talking about you. I'm just saying CGC is not above any of those tactics and have already done similar things in the past. People who had good working relationships with CGC for years were suddenly blacklisted for also offering their services to others in the industry. That's exactly like the scenario between competing conventions you presented. Now, if CGC's policies don't affect you in a negative way, that's fine. Let's not pretend they didn't affect others though. Kind of like how I'll never attend (and certainly not set up a booth at) any of the conventions mentioned so it doesn't affect me, but I can see how a vendor wouldn't like being given that ultimatum. I can still recognize things that don't affect me in a negative manner as bad.

 

Jeez ... can you can it with the hyperbole, please? Nobody has been blacklisted by CGC.

 

It's hilarious how transparent you are - if Voldemort were the ones initiating this deal, you'd be the first to applaud what a smart business move it was

I don't even know who Voldemort is. And I'm not saying CGC is evil, or even worse than the competition. What I'm saying is this kind of deal is bad for consumers and collectors. No matter how much you love CGC, you must be able to see that, right?

 

I get 2 more onsite grading shows a year - I'm a happy consumer/collector :thumbsup:

[dupont2005]

I don't know that the name brand of the clothing manufacturer will make or break a fans decision to buy a jersey. What would however is walking into a fan show with your jersey in hand, standing in line, and finding out when you arrive at the table that the athelete won't sign your jersey unless it's the name brand he's aligned with under his "new" endorsement contract.

 

Never happens right?

 

No, and it's because it's too stupid to even imagine treating fans that way.

 

Somehow, it's happening with C2E2, and it's Popweeds prerogative to run their show to the ground, but don't think that fans are going to be happy being turned away because a contract forces it's hand on people's ability to enjoy fan culture.

 

Happens all the time. Bryce Harper - just as an example -will only sign Under Armor items. He's nice about it - and will sign for anything for kids - but at signing events, only Under Armor.

And do you think this is a good thing or a bad thing, when a fan saves up and buys a $100 jersey and takes that once in a lifetime trip to meet his sports hero only to be turned away because of some contract signed in exchange for a check?

 

Is it a part of business? Sure. Is it to the benefit of anyone but the people who signed that contract? No. Is it reasonable for fans to not be happy about it? Absolutely.

 

Just the other day someone in here was upset because Stan Lee will not sign blank variants anymore. And his reason wasn't "Someone paid me to refuse them" either. He has a perfectly reasonable motivation to turn them away. And yet, it still sucks for that fan who wanted a Stan sig on their sketch cover, right?

[PovertyRow]

Well, do you collect my little pony?

 

Nay nay, blazingbob, nay nay.

[dupont2005]

I wasn't talking about you. I'm just saying CGC is not above any of those tactics and have already done similar things in the past. People who had good working relationships with CGC for years were suddenly blacklisted for also offering their services to others in the industry. That's exactly like the scenario between competing conventions you presented. Now, if CGC's policies don't affect you in a negative way, that's fine. Let's not pretend they didn't affect others though. Kind of like how I'll never attend (and certainly not set up a booth at) any of the conventions mentioned so it doesn't affect me, but I can see how a vendor wouldn't like being given that ultimatum. I can still recognize things that don't affect me in a negative manner as bad.

 

Jeez ... can you can it with the hyperbole, please? Nobody has been blacklisted by CGC.

 

It's hilarious how transparent you are - if Voldemort were the ones initiating this deal, you'd be the first to applaud what a smart business move it was

I don't even know who Voldemort is. And I'm not saying CGC is evil, or even worse than the competition. What I'm saying is this kind of deal is bad for consumers and collectors. No matter how much you love CGC, you must be able to see that, right?

 

I get 2 more onsite grading shows a year - I'm a happy consumer/collector :thumbsup:

Check back in five years.

[jaybuck43]

I wasn't talking about you. I'm just saying CGC is not above any of those tactics and have already done similar things in the past. People who had good working relationships with CGC for years were suddenly blacklisted for also offering their services to others in the industry. That's exactly like the scenario between competing conventions you presented. Now, if CGC's policies don't affect you in a negative way, that's fine. Let's not pretend they didn't affect others though. Kind of like how I'll never attend (and certainly not set up a booth at) any of the conventions mentioned so it doesn't affect me, but I can see how a vendor wouldn't like being given that ultimatum. I can still recognize things that don't affect me in a negative manner as bad.

 

Jeez ... can you can it with the hyperbole, please? Nobody has been blacklisted by CGC.

 

It's hilarious how transparent you are - if Voldemort were the ones initiating this deal, you'd be the first to applaud what a smart business move it was

I don't even know who Voldemort is. And I'm not saying CGC is evil, or even worse than the competition. What I'm saying is this kind of deal is bad for consumers and collectors. No matter how much you love CGC, you must be able to see that, right?

 

I get 2 more onsite grading shows a year - I'm a happy consumer/collector :thumbsup:

Check back in five years.

 

Anybody else besides me decide to CALL Reed and ask them about it? Per the CSR I spoke with, at those two shows the exclusivity deal pertains to onsite grading only. They welcome all booths. Feel free to give them a ring if you'd like, but they are closed for today. 1.203.840.4800

[PovertyRow]

Just the other day someone in here was upset because Stan Lee will not sign blank variants anymore. And his reason wasn't "Someone paid me to refuse them" either. He has a perfectly reasonable motivation to turn them away. And yet, it still sucks for that fan who wanted a Stan sig on their sketch cover, right?

 

Yes, Stan's reason was well within bounds. What PC did with those blanks Stan signed? I see nothing amusing at all there. They struck me as trashy and tasteless.

[greggy]

I wasn't talking about you. I'm just saying CGC is not above any of those tactics and have already done similar things in the past. People who had good working relationships with CGC for years were suddenly blacklisted for also offering their services to others in the industry. That's exactly like the scenario between competing conventions you presented. Now, if CGC's policies don't affect you in a negative way, that's fine. Let's not pretend they didn't affect others though. Kind of like how I'll never attend (and certainly not set up a booth at) any of the conventions mentioned so it doesn't affect me, but I can see how a vendor wouldn't like being given that ultimatum. I can still recognize things that don't affect me in a negative manner as bad.

 

Jeez ... can you can it with the hyperbole, please? Nobody has been blacklisted by CGC.

 

It's hilarious how transparent you are - if Voldemort were the ones initiating this deal, you'd be the first to applaud what a smart business move it was

I don't even know who Voldemort is. And I'm not saying CGC is evil, or even worse than the competition. What I'm saying is this kind of deal is bad for consumers and collectors. No matter how much you love CGC, you must be able to see that, right?

 

I get 2 more onsite grading shows a year - I'm a happy consumer/collector :thumbsup:

Check back in five years.

 

Anybody else besides me decide to CALL Reed and ask them about it? Per the CSR I spoke with, at those two shows the exclusivity deal pertains to onsite grading only. They welcome all booths. Feel free to give them a ring if you'd like, but they are closed for today. 1.203.840.4800

I saw a facebook post where there is a screen shot of a Reed stating that CBCS is not allowed to exhibit there or advertise at those conventions.

[InvstmntComcSuply]

 

Anybody else besides me decide to CALL Reed and ask them about it? Per the CSR I spoke with, at those two shows the exclusivity deal pertains to onsite grading only. They welcome all booths. Feel free to give them a ring if you'd like, but they are closed for today. 1.203.840.4800

 

I would not expect the first person you get when inquiring about booth purchases is privy to these kind of deals.

 

Likely Reed general answer

 

"Sure, a booth selling honey and incense sounds great! I think you will do gangbusters! Can I get your credit card info to reserve your space?"

[mschmidt]

I wasn't talking about you. I'm just saying CGC is not above any of those tactics and have already done similar things in the past. People who had good working relationships with CGC for years were suddenly blacklisted for also offering their services to others in the industry. That's exactly like the scenario between competing conventions you presented. Now, if CGC's policies don't affect you in a negative way, that's fine. Let's not pretend they didn't affect others though. Kind of like how I'll never attend (and certainly not set up a booth at) any of the conventions mentioned so it doesn't affect me, but I can see how a vendor wouldn't like being given that ultimatum. I can still recognize things that don't affect me in a negative manner as bad.

 

Jeez ... can you can it with the hyperbole, please? Nobody has been blacklisted by CGC.

 

It's hilarious how transparent you are - if Voldemort were the ones initiating this deal, you'd be the first to applaud what a smart business move it was

I don't even know who Voldemort is. And I'm not saying CGC is evil, or even worse than the competition. What I'm saying is this kind of deal is bad for consumers and collectors. No matter how much you love CGC, you must be able to see that, right?

 

I get 2 more onsite grading shows a year - I'm a happy consumer/collector :thumbsup:

Check back in five years.

 

Are you saying there'll be more onsite grading shows then?

[PovertyRow]

But I like honey!

[jaybuck43]

 

Anybody else besides me decide to CALL Reed and ask them about it? Per the CSR I spoke with, at those two shows the exclusivity deal pertains to onsite grading only. They welcome all booths. Feel free to give them a ring if you'd like, but they are closed for today. 1.203.840.4800

 

I would not expect the first person you get when inquiring about booth purchases is privy to these kind of deals.

 

Likely Reed general answer

 

"Sure, a booth selling honey and incense sounds great! I think you will do gangbusters! Can I get your credit card info to reserve your space?"

 

No, that's why the first person transferred me to the person dealing with CSR for C2E2.

[FlyingDonut]

I don't know that the name brand of the clothing manufacturer will make or break a fans decision to buy a jersey. What would however is walking into a fan show with your jersey in hand, standing in line, and finding out when you arrive at the table that the athelete won't sign your jersey unless it's the name brand he's aligned with under his "new" endorsement contract.

 

Never happens right?

 

No, and it's because it's too stupid to even imagine treating fans that way.

 

Somehow, it's happening with C2E2, and it's Popweeds prerogative to run their show to the ground, but don't think that fans are going to be happy being turned away because a contract forces it's hand on people's ability to enjoy fan culture.

 

Happens all the time. Bryce Harper - just as an example -will only sign Under Armor items. He's nice about it - and will sign for anything for kids - but at signing events, only Under Armor.

And do you think this is a good thing or a bad thing, when a fan saves up and buys a $100 jersey and takes that once in a lifetime trip to meet his sports hero only to be turned away because of some contract signed in exchange for a check?

 

Is it a part of business? Sure. Is it to the benefit of anyone but the people who signed that contract? No. Is it reasonable for fans to not be happy about it? Absolutely.

 

Just the other day someone in here was upset because Stan Lee will not sign blank variants anymore. And his reason wasn't "Someone paid me to refuse them" either. He has a perfectly reasonable motivation to turn them away. And yet, it still sucks for that fan who wanted a Stan sig on their sketch cover, right?

 

But you're arguing two different things.

 

This is the sunshine and rainbows and kumbaya part. CGC is a business, and a business is in existence to make money. Not to have a happy collectiing community. Are you upset? Sure. Can you do something about it? Well yes. You can not submit your books to get slabbed at ECCC. You can seek out another place to submit.

 

To carry the idea even further, you know that only CGC is at the convention, just as you know that Bryce Harper only signs Under Armor items.

 

I truly do not see what people are getting upset about. CGC is a business. They are in a business to make money. If by having exclusive deals with conventions they make more money, good for them. They don't have any obligation whatsoever to allow their direct competition to compete with them.

[FlyingDonut]

 

I guess I am having a hard time seeing the difference between this deal and any other business deal across a myriad of businesses. I just stripped away "comics" from the analysis and it brings me to the same destination each time. Maybe I am looking at it from the wrong perspective. How do you see it as different than any other exclusivity deal in business? Seriously. It's possible I am too locked into my analysis.

 

Actually I don't see it as different from other exclusivity deals, I just see it as a a spoon move on CGC's part. Maybe good "business sense" to those in business but a spoon move.

 

FD had said:

What has always amused me on this board is that people believe that comic book sales should be all sunshine and rainbows and kumbaya, ignoring the fact that it is a business. Exclusivity deals happen all the time in every aspect. I'm assuming all of you have no problem with your favorite sports team only wearing one company's clothing line - that's the exact same thing that is happening here.

 

This gives me pause in a couple of ways. First he is referring to "comic book sales" which has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion, since neither TPG is allowed to sell books. That is what I am talking about when I say business can skew perception. This is not nor has it ever been a discussion about comic book sales.

 

Next he uses the classic "denigrate/humiliate the opposition" attempt with his "all sunshine and rainbows and kumbaya". What? Is that supposed to humiliate me? Make me sound like a Brony? Comic collecting is a very communal hobby. Message boards like this attest to that. The fact people have, among other things, travelled internationally to get together, done tremendous favors for other collectors,,raised who know how many tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in charity threads here makes this something that deserves more than "sunshine,rainbows and kumbaya".

 

Comic collecting is a communal hobby.

 

Third party grading is not. Third party grading is a business.

 

Members of this board - for the 15 years I have been on it - routinely confuse the communal hobby with the business of selling products. CGC is in a business to sell products. CGC is not in a business to make us all feel communal and good about each other and the rest of the hobby. They are in the business of selling grading services. If they believe that having an exclusive contract with a convention allows them to sell more of their product, they've ponied up the cash to do so.

 

Again, this is no different from any other exclusivity deal anywhere in the world. Nuveen Investments is the exclusive money management firm of the Chicago Cubs. In your scenario, Nuveen should want Fidelity to advertise as well.