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

[Dale Roberts]

Basic business practice.

 

Smart on the part of CGC.

 

Nothing else to say.

 

Moving along...

 

 

Maybe but still bad for the consumers [us] so why would that make you happy?

 

How is it bad for you? You can send all the books you like to CBCS via the mail. When you walk in McDonald's and they only have coke, nobody says, well jeez, can't eat here, I must have a choice!

 

As for CBCS going and making an attempt to buy exclusive access to set up at a show two problems:

 

1) if it's a small show, it has to be one that CGC is doing and they've gained an advantage -- and you have to crunch the economics of whether they will take in enough submissions at said show to justify the cost. They may not.

 

2) At a larger show to directly compete to convince the show promoter to shut out CGC may be tough. By offering on site grading, they are giving the show promoter something that's unique and raises the cache of the show. CBCS doesn't have anything to offer other than money, which CGC could easily match or outspend. I wouldn't get into the trap for CBCS, I'd simply go about business as usual.

 

Up until this point, having another viable third-party grader was good for the community.

 

The sentiment was almost unanimous on these boards and everywhere where comics are discussed that a viable competitor entering into the ring was good for the hobby.

 

Now, Comic Wreckers and Popweed push out the competition and it's just business.

 

And please stop using this beverage war example - it shouldn't even remotely be used in the same discussion.

 

On-site grading's greatest selling point is CONVENIENCE. Worry warts who don't want to mail their stuff, and people who want instant gratification build their submission piles probably months or a full calendar year ahead anticipating being able to pick up their books at the end of the show.

 

To take away one of the two choices is unwise, is almost guaranteed to backfire, and is not anything resembling competition.

 

It's a misguided, desperate throwback attempt to return to the monopoly they once held, and screams of a company scared out of their wits that CBCS's market share keeps growing.

 

Totally disagree -- why shouldn't beverage war be used? It's two products or services. It's a competitive advantage and if someone wants to pay or negotiate a deal that gives them exclusivity is fine.

 

Taking away one always backfires? For who? Under what example? How is this going to negatively impact anything?

 

Its been shown in this thread why the beverage comparison doesn't work and shouldn't be used.

 

Would you go to a con if you were limited to only the following vendors:

DC comics

Funko Pops

Mile High

Mattel

Pizza Pizza

Supergirl cast, crew, film, editor

 

or would you prefer to go to the con that has:

DC, Marvel, IDW, DH, Valiant

Funko, Junko, Munko, Trunko

Mile High, Dale, Bob, Rick, Adam

Mattel, Sony, Microsoft, Nerf

Pizza Pizza, Chinese, Wraps, Salad, Steak

Supergirl, Harry Potter, Batman, Anime

 

its a disservice to all attendees to shut out the #2 company.

 

Then vote with your wallet. Don't go to the show.

 

That'll show 'em!

 

Buy multiple tickets and don't go. If everyone does it, the effect on dealers would be a very effective statement.

 

Yeah, that is a brillant suggestion. Remind me again why I accept your consignments.

 

 

Actually wouldn't it make more sense to boycott the offending company, instead of all the exhibitors who did nothing wrong?

[newshane]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say if Voldemort got an exclusive deal at a big con there would be plenty of unhappy people here.

 

Not really. I'd simply drop my submissions in the mail.

[90sChild]

Let's break down the desired outcome for this business decision.

 

To revisit the pepsi/coke example let's just think of it differently. Let's say two football stadiums in the country decided to only sell Pepsi, and banned coke. On the business to business side, Pepsi wins out, and the stadium collects their paycheck from Pepsi with the assumption consumers will not stop patronizing their business because they will want to see football regardless. Consumers can boycott their football stadium, but it is unlikely to have a large effect.

 

In this situation, convention owners do not care if you boycott and attend elsewhere, and CGC also wins. Next you have to define what winning is for CGC. We don't have any evidence to suggest exclusive rights will result in all the people who favor coke and refuse to drink pepsi are now going to switch to pepsi. People with no brand loyalty will not mind switching. What percentage of people is that and how big does it need to be to make this exclusive deal worthwhile?

 

It is my opinion, few people hold BRAND LOYALTY to one specific con/company/promoter. They may have a preference such as distance from their home etc, but that is not brand loyalty. I think there are too many cons out there to monopolize all of them, even if you only went for the major ones that drew national/international travel.

 

In my opinion, in order for this monopoly to become effective, you would need to have exclusive deals at every single giant con in the country. It would be like getting all 32/32 NFL stadiums. As of right now, the consumer has the option of 30 other football stadiums around the country if they couldn't get what they wanted from those 2 cons with exclusive deals.

But this isn't football, so we are not limited to just the major league teams. Unlike sports, all the minor league teams (small cons) ARE competing with the big leagues too. There are literally thousands of cons going on around the country. Even if you could monopolize all the major league teams, there are still enough minor league teams out there that people could go get what they want regardless.