The journey from there to here

Some years ago, about a month before the Christmas buying season, we were going through the department store with my then toddler daughter. The "Sing and Snore Ernie" was the newest toy release, and my daughter was thrilled. It would go on to become one of the big holiday toys, although not nearly as big as the "Tickle me Elmo" of the previous year.

After it had grabbed its niche as the big toy of the year, but well before Christmas, I was walking through the same department store as a display full of the popular toys was being stacked in the aisle. Never one to miss an opportunity, I bought one (they had been out of stock for some time) and took it home. I then watched the "bottom line" prices on eBay, determined that it would be worth reselling if the price climbed high enough. It never got high enough for my satisfaction, though, so it was the main Christmas gift for my daughter that year.

My rationale behind the planned sale was sound: if it was about the toy, we knew we could easily get it AFTER Christmas, and with the potential profits to be made, we could have given our daughter a much better Christmas. In return, we would be providing someone else with a gift they considered ESSENTIAL for their children.

This year, the hot item in question is the XBox 360, and already accusations are flying about price gouging and the ethics of reselling the unit at such a large profit margin. In years past, I might have weighed in on the debate myself. But see, I have, over time, learned about supply and demand and why the price they are asking is reasonable, as long as the other is willing to pay it. Interestingly enough, my education in this area was brough about by the post Katrina gas hikes...but I digress.

The people who purchased the Xbox 360 did so at a cost to them. That cost was TIME. They preordered, they sat around and waited for the release, in long lines in many areas. They paid for an item that most of them fully intended to use for their family's Christmas gift, often with hard earned cash that looked to be in great peril of nonexistence during our brief gas crisis. For those individuals, it will take a lot of cash to separate them from their systems.

The potential buyers of these systems are driven by simple motives: They want their children (or themselves) to have an XBox 360 and January 1 is too late for them. They're willing to pay the high prices to ensure that the unit will be sitting under the Christmas tree (I could easily launch into a missive of capitalism vs. socialism in this regard, but I'll refrain from digressing further). And, thanks to the Internet, they HAVE the availability of the systems, but at a price.

The thing about eBay, you must remember, is, it is an AUCTION site. While some items may be available at a "Buy it NOW!" price, the fact is, the market will be driven by the willingness of buyers who will bid up the price. This is how supply and demand works...and it is working quite well. To drop the price of the items, buyers need to do one thing: NOT BID!

Now, there may be a few folks who managed to wrangle large quantities of the gaming unit. If they broke any laws in doing so, they should certainly be punished. But they should NOT be punished for reselling at profit what they have legally obtained. That is, after all, one of the core principles that drives our system.

They just need to remember to pay their taxes!


Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Nov 26, 2005

For the record, I found a 360 core unit for $650 (buy it now! price), and a premium unit for $1000 (also buy it now). Good bidders should be able to find a better price, should they so desire.

The retail margins on those units (assuming the buyers paid retail) are FAR from excessive.

Just thought I'd add that as a footnote.

on Nov 26, 2005

YOu have learned well Jedi!  While people rail about it, the simple fact of the matter is that the law of supply and demand cannot be broken. For it is a natural law, and not a man made one.

For those so willing to turn a fast buck, I say go for it!  For those wanting to please a persnickety child, pay the piper!

on Nov 27, 2005
What gets me about the whole "Big Holiday Toy" thing is, whether you cold-cock someone in a toy store, pay top dollar on Ebay or miraculously find it in stock at a store 3 days before Christmas... the recipient isn't going to get to play it BEFORE CHRISTMAS. The whole "I got it before anyone else" thing kid of seems stupid when you look at the fact that the recipient will get it the same day as everyone else! ;~D

As far as what price is "too much" for anything, I'm reminded of a convoy stop at a state run rest area during a military convoy. I looked at the price they wanted for pop and munchies and turned around, refusing to pay. As I walked away from the machines, other soldiers commented on the inflated price, but happily paid for the convenience. "How bad do you want it" was the joke made by one troop, as he put his dollars into the machine.

There is nothing wrong with the prices people are getting for "The big toy" of the year... but if the people willing to run up the bidding so high want it that much, I have a few questions about what is wrong with them. ;~D
on Nov 27, 2005

Another issue to bring up is wouldn't it be a form of scalping, as well?

Honestly, I don't see anything wrong with scalping, either...and, again, with the qualifier that the profiteers pay their taxes on it.

As applies to scalping, let me ask you this. What's the difference between a scalper and Ticketmaster? The only difference I can see is a business license.

on Nov 28, 2005

Once again, it's just my opinion that such balant rip-off after-market selling galls my sense of fairness.. and in the end that's the only thing that I care about.

The law of Supply and Demand is not fair.  It is a law.  Is it fair that Cobol and RPG Programmers could gouge the market for 6 figure salaries around Y2K?  It is the same principal in action, yet I dont hear anyone demanding they pay back their excess wages from the period leading up to 2000.  While theirs was not 'billions', if you take all the salaries of all the programmers, it would be up there.  Yet since they were thousands of individuals wage earners instead of thousands of stock holders, there is no outrage.

on Nov 28, 2005
I personally don't get the point of having to get the toy now. I have two kids but only one of them is old enough to want something and have to get it now. Still he understands (in a way, thank God) that if he can't get it now, for either financial or availability reasons, he will eventually get it or probably forget about it and want something else instead. I will never pay twice or more for something, unless it will grow in value as time passes. I would love an Xbox 360 for me and the kids, but iit will have to wait till after new years, just can't afford $400 at the moment.

I have always said things are only as expensive as people are willing to pay for. Ebay is parcially proof of that.

Here's one toy I will never get. It would make sense if it was made for small children who lack the ability to control toys yet so it's better if it moves by itself. These new vehicles that look like Hummers, Ford Expeditions or the new Mustang that move by pressing a button. What ever happened to the remote control? Why would a kid, those old enough to use remote control cars and which these are basically made for, would want a car that they can't control and only runs in one direction? But imagen what these companies did to get people to buy these, really big, lights, sounds, spinners for the rims, the latest body kits for lowriders. but wait, there's more. For the new age, throw in an MP3 player so they can listen to tunes while watching the cars drive by all by themselves. I'm sure someone up in the corporate office found a way to make more money off these toys by eliminating the remote control and making them seem more expensive. Oh well, that's life and like I said before, they are only as expensive as people are willing to pay for it. And in most cases they do.
on Nov 28, 2005

Also, you mentioned gas prices after Katrina.. What is your viewpoint on that? (I haven't viewed your article about it, if you have one..) Should the big oil companies/gas stations charge whatever they feel like, since people will pay for it?

My viewpoint was (and is) that the gas price hikes after Katrina did in 6 weeks what the environmental movement couldn't do in 30 years. We reduced our consumption and became more environmentally conscious. Pellet stoves are backordered until mid January, SUV sales have fallen off sharply, and as a result, gas prices have dropped (the oil industry can only sell their product at a price people will pay).

Incidentally, the argument from the environmental left isn't that gas prices are too high. On the contrary, they want higer taxes on gas to result in the same net price at the pump (the Sierra Club is among the many environmental groups advocating this). Their beef is that gas prices rose and they didn't get a slice of the pie.

The difference between a tax based price hike and a price hike organized by oil companies is that the latter price will come down as demand subsides. The former will not. Now ask yourself, which is more likely to cause inflation?

 

on Dec 02, 2005
While I agree that the value of something is as high as the highest price someone is willing to pay for it, I still find this sort of profiteering to be pretty slimy. There's a manager guy in an office a few feet from me who has THREE of the premium consoles. He has NO intention of using them, the entire reason he got them was to sell them for roughly $1200 a piece on eBay. Yes, it's his right to do so, it's as much the fault of the buyers as the sellers that this happens... doesn't mean I have to like the people that have this mentality.

It's the whole "F*%$ you! I'm out for number one!" mentality that seems to be ever growing. The manager guy near me, he has a son who isn't into video games yet. I'm willing to bet money that if he wasn't able to get ahold of some hot new toy his kid desperately wanted, and people were reselling them for hundreds of dollars more on eBay, he'd be furious with them for exploiting the situation. These people selling now are the same ones who pitch a fit over fairness and legality if THEY are the ones left out in the cold.

And here I sit, waiting for my preorder to come in to EB... maybe after Christmas. I refuse to pay a dollar over retail for the thing.
on Dec 02, 2005
To me the shame isn't on the guy who would charge $1200 for an Xbox, the shame is on the idiot who would pay that price, just to have the console a few weeks before the Jones'.

Every year there is "THE toy" that "EVERYONE" just has to have. It is an engineered fad. An artificial demand is established and little pea brained parents run out in full attack mode to have that present under their tree for little Johnie and Janie SpoiledRotten.

As long as there are pseudoparents willing to shell out that kind of money just to feed their little whelp's habit, I say, why not? "you can't rape the willing" right?
on Dec 02, 2005
Another point of view:

There is a seller and several possible buyers. The buyers can buy from any seller they want to (Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo etc.).

The sellers can also sell to whoever they want.

Assuming that Microsoft knew that there is such demand for the Xbox that some buyers are willing to pay more than retail, thus allowing people to sell their Xboxes to them at high prices; could we not also assume that Microsoft did not actually WANT to sell Xboxes to people who would not be, in fact, the end-users of the systems sold to them.

Assuming further that Microsoft and their partners always work under the assumption that the buyer in the store is one of those buyers they want to sell to (and end-user) and assuming that retail store would rather want to make a huge profit themselves (and not let ebay users make the possible profit), would it not be logical to think that all those who buy an Xbox to sell it are not really the kind of people Microsoft and the retailers wanted to sell to and are thus buying Xboxes under the false pretense that they would be the end-users (because Microsoft and the retailers assumed they were end-users and weren't told otherwise)?

If a deal happens because one side makes an assumption and the other side could have known that and didn't correct the first party, is the deal still valid?
on Dec 02, 2005
P.S.: I think it's a given that Microsoft would not want to sell to just about anybody, because Xboxes are highly subsidized by the company. Microsoft want to sell to those who spend more money on games (and not more money on buying an Xbox from an ebay seller).
on Dec 03, 2005

Dr. Guy, I know it isn't fair. That's part of the problem,

Natural law never is.  It basically sucks, but nothing we can do about it either.

on Dec 03, 2005
I doubt Microsoft cares about their stuff going up on eBay. When they engineer an inflated demand for the "big toy" of the year, they know that their won't be enough supply to fit demand, they know that not everyone wants (or cares) to get that "big toy" at Christmas time.

By creating a huge demand they not only guarentee their product will sell out at Christmas, but they are also creating an after Christmas market for themselves.

The name of the game in marketing is, create a demand, expand the demand, but never quite meet the demand...

They do the same thing in comedy, but they say it differently.. "Always leave them wanting more".
2 Pages1 2