View Full Version : Sony Incentives to Gamestop Employees...
expletive
07-Jun-2007, 18:30
http://www.gamersreports.com/news/5801/sony-offers-gamestop-managers-prizes-for-pushing-ps3-units/
If this is true, and it seems it is, its not a good precedent. You've already got these places littered with associates with their own agendas, this will only make it worse. It doesnt affect me personally because 99% of the time I know exactly what I want when i go into one of these stores, but what about parents or others who are looking for help making an informed decision? This, to me, is similar to a journalist taking a gift from a publisher. Am I missing something here?
alot of companys do this including the one I work at.. so?
expletive
07-Jun-2007, 18:39
alot of companys do this including the one I work at.. so?
Don't you think it compromises the ability or likelihood that someone is going to get objective buying advice from the employees? If so, "they're all doing it" isn't a good enough excuse for me...for any of them.
Inane_Dork
07-Jun-2007, 18:43
If Gamestop actually accepted the offer, that is severely stupid. They should refuse any such deals.
Retail doesn't exist to give you advice, they are trying to sell crap. This kind of stuff happened all the time when I worked retail. Next time you are buying a console don't ask the advice of some 20 year old $7/hour kid, use your brain.
tha_con
07-Jun-2007, 18:50
http://www.gamersreports.com/news/5801/sony-offers-gamestop-managers-prizes-for-pushing-ps3-units/
If this is true, and it seems it is, its not a good precedent. You've already got these places littered with associates with their own agendas, this will only make it worse. It doesnt affect me personally because 99% of the time I know exactly what I want when i go into one of these stores, but what about parents or others who are looking for help making an informed decision? This, to me, is similar to a journalist taking a gift from a publisher. Am I missing something here?
Microsoft does it too.
expletive
07-Jun-2007, 18:52
Retail doesn't exist to give you advice, they are trying to sell crap. This kind of stuff happened all the time when I worked retail. Next time you are buying a console don't ask the advice of some 20 year old $7/hour kid, use your brain.
They can still sell crap, but at least try and sell the crap that best suits the individual customer. I use MY brain, its not me who something like this impacts, as I stated in the OP.
Microsoft does it too.
And? A few of you seem to be missing the point, its not Sony thats the problem, hey they should go for it. Its Gamestop thats doing wrong by their customers.
They can still sell crap, but at least try and sell the crap that best suits the individual customer. I use MY brain, its not me who something like this impacts, as I stated in the OP.
And? A few of you seem to be missing the point, its not Sony thats the problem, hey they should go for it. Its Gamestop thats doing wrong by their customers.
I didn't mean you, I meant people in general - no offense. :oops:
tongue_of_colicab
07-Jun-2007, 18:58
And that makes it oke? So if someone steals a car, you can steal one too because the other guy also did it?
Its obvious that retail only wants to sell stuff and most stores dont give a shit about what they sell you or have capabel personall to begin with. You should always try to figure out what you want yourself as much as you can (or ask friends/family) however I think a store should also be able to give a decent advice based on what the customer wants and not because company X gave them some money to sell their product.
I guess Sony wants to do whatever they can to push ps3's as they arnt exactly selling like hot cakes.
expletive
07-Jun-2007, 18:58
I didn't mean you, I meant people in general - no offense. :oops:
Understood, and none taken, but still, you cant say 'use your brain' to someone like, say, my wife. :) If she wasnt lucky enough to be married to a nerd, she'd be at the mercy of these kids working in these places when she needed buying assistance.
tha_con
07-Jun-2007, 19:00
The point of retail is to sell people things they don't really want or need while putting on a front that you're helping them. The best way to get your employee's to do this is to give them incentive, and what better incentive than offering ways to win free games and consoles?
There is nothing wrong with this, if you think there is, never go into a retail store again, and simply purchase online only.
And? A few of you seem to be missing the point, its not Sony thats the problem, hey they should go for it. Its Gamestop thats doing wrong by their customers.At least Sony is not abusing monopoly by exerting influence over retailers... if incentives are wrong then exclusivity contract is also wrong, console launch incentive is wrong, software licensing business is wrong, console industry is wrong.
Understood, and none taken, but still, you cant say 'use your brain' to someone like, say, my wife. :) If she wasnt lucky enough to be married to a nerd, she'd be at the mercy of these kids working in these places when she needed buying assistance.
Never ever trust the motivations of a sales person. If they are not injecting their personal bias, they are motivated by quotas or sales competitions. Do your homework from home on the net and just use the store to buy something. You can't blame a company like Sony or MS for this kind of thing, they are trying to make money and if they don't do it their competition will.
rbushner
07-Jun-2007, 19:08
Don't you think it compromises the ability or likelihood that someone is going to get objective buying advice from the employees? If so, "they're all doing it" isn't a good enough excuse for me...for any of them.
I agree it's a shoddy practice. It isn't new, but that doesn't make it ok.
Never ever trust the motivations of a sales person. If they are not injecting their personally bias, they are motivated by quotas or sales competitions. Do your homework from home on the net and just use the store to buy something. You can't blame a company like Sony or MS for this kind of thing, they are trying to make money and if they don't do it their competition will.
Nice post.
You can blame Gamestop though.
tha_con
07-Jun-2007, 19:13
I agree it's a shoddy practice. It isn't new, but that doesn't make it ok.
Nice post.
You can blame Gamestop though.
Why? For being a business that wants to make money and at the same time give their trained employee's incentive to stay with the company?
Yea, that's a real bad practice :roll:
expletive
07-Jun-2007, 19:14
At least Sony is not abusing monopoly by exerting influence over retailers... if incentives are wrong then exclusivity contract is also wrong, console launch incentive is wrong, software licensing business is wrong, console industry is wrong.
You're going to have to be more specific here.
Never ever trust the motivations of a sales person. If they are not injecting their personal bias, they are motivated by quotas or sales competitions. Do your homework from home on the net and just use the store to buy something. You can't blame a company like Sony or MS for this kind of thing, they are trying to make money and if they don't do it their competition will.
I'm not, i'm blaming Gamestop. And I disagree, the reason why a lot of electronics stores make note of the fact that their salespeople are 'commission free' is because it adds a comfort level that the associates are providing some level of objective, pressure-free, advice.
Are a lot of these employees already indoctrinated with a particular brand? Maybe. So then does that make it right for gamestop to put the rest of the unbiased ones on commission for selling a particular brand, regardless of the consumer's need?
RobertR1
07-Jun-2007, 19:22
http://www.gamersreports.com/news/5801/sony-offers-gamestop-managers-prizes-for-pushing-ps3-units/
If this is true, and it seems it is, its not a good precedent. You've already got these places littered with associates with their own agendas, this will only make it worse. It doesnt affect me personally because 99% of the time I know exactly what I want when i go into one of these stores, but what about parents or others who are looking for help making an informed decision? This, to me, is similar to a journalist taking a gift from a publisher. Am I missing something here?
Desperate times! How low will a company go to reclaim marketshare? If the sales continue to lag, I doubt this is the worst we'll see. I don't support these tactics regardless of the company involved.
Fair game,
Lots of times when I enter these stores I see the employees sporting Xbox t-shirts and have encounter lots of times when an older lady or someone unsure what to purchase asks the employees what they should buy and lots of them would say to stay away from the PS3. Lots of these guys have an agenda to push and they do push...
Are a lot of these employees already indoctrinated with a particular brand? Maybe. So then does that make it right for gamestop to put the rest of the unbiased ones on commission for selling a particular brand, regardless of the consumer's need?
No it's not right. Gamestop should say no, but everyone is in bed together to take our money. It's the same at a car dealership, Gamestop or Walmart - welcome to capitalism. If it's not outright illegal then it's done.
A thread about something that is neither right nor wrong, where there is nothing that can really be done about it, and where the thread title seems to purposely insinuate bias...sounds like this thread should be in the Religion, Politics & Socioeconomic Climate (http://forum.beyond3d.com/forumdisplay.php?f=27) section of Beyond3D instead.
You're going to have to be more specific here.Store clerks are not paid by you so they can say whatever to you before you buy something! Very simple, isn't it? Anyway. It's pretty normal for a retailer to have its own agenda since they always have to control and maintain their inventory healthy. One of their jobs is to sell something that doesn't sell otherwise after all.
expletive
07-Jun-2007, 19:33
A thread about something that is neither right nor wrong, where there is nothing that can really be done about it, and where the thread title seems to purposely insinuate bias...sounds like this thread should be in the Religion, Politics & Socioeconomic Climate (http://forum.beyond3d.com/forumdisplay.php?f=27) section of Beyond3D instead.
It is wrong, people can do something about it (i.e. shop somewhere else), and the title is doing nothing but stating the facts provided in the link.
Store clerks are not paid by you so they can say whatever to you before you buy something! Very simple, isn't it? Anyway. It's pretty normal for a retailer to have its own agenda since they always have to control and maintain their inventory healthy. One of their jobs is to sell something that doesn't sell otherwise after all.
This is different. This is Gamestop allowing an incentive directly to their employees, ensuring that any shred of objective advice that a consumer might get from their associates, is further obscured. I dont pay them, but Gamestop does. Does it seem like good business to you to have the face of your company risk lcoming off like a bunch of shills?
infinity4
07-Jun-2007, 19:36
at the end of the day if you do all the necessary research + cost calculation on any product you are looking at, salesperson or promotion means nothing to you. ;)
edit: i tried all my best to stop laughing when this guy from GAME tried to tell me that there's more games to play on ps3 than 360 :twisted: :lol:
It is wrong
According to you. But the posters above have certainly explained why your opinion is not the universal truth.
people can do something about it (i.e. shop somewhere else)
They're likely to encounter the same thing elsewhere, as others have explained above. I too have worked retail and can tell you the same thing.
and the title is doing nothing but stating the facts provided in the link.
Yes, but I'm sure it can be agreed that it could have been written in other words since there is not one specific company doing this.
It is wrong, people can do something about it (i.e. shop somewhere else), and the title is doing nothing but stating the facts provided in the link.
This is different. This is Gamestop allowing an incentive directly to their employees, ensuring that any shred of objective advice that a consumer might get from their associates, is further obscured.
Where do you shop then, how do you prove what is otherwise a company policy which is not public?
Like someone said, buy online and stay away from sales people.
expletive
07-Jun-2007, 19:44
According to you. But the posters above have certainly explained why your opinion is not the universal truth.
Has someone actually made a successful argument that this isnt wrong? I've seen a lot of 'well so does Microsoft' and some 'c'est la vie". Let me check again...
They're likely to encounter the same thing elsewhere, as others have explained above. I too have worked retail and can tell you the same thing.
All I can do is make my purchasing decisions based on the information i have in front of me. If i find that Best Buy or an alternative chain were doing it as well, then eventually i'd be left with no alternative but to go online.
Yes, but I'm sure it can be agreed that it could have been written in other words since there is not one specific company doing this.
No, i only have proof of this, so I can't outirght say they all are doing it, even though they may very well be.
Where do you shop then, how do you prove what is otherwise a company policy which is not public?
Like someone said, buy online and stay away from sales people.
See above.
Has someone actually made a successful argument that this isnt wrong? I've seen a lot of 'well so does Microsoft' and some 'c'est la vie". Let me check again...
Therein lies the problem? To what basis do you say it is wrong? From what perspective? From a business perspective, they're doing what is right to maintain sales. Stockholders see it as something good. From some perspectives it is "right" from some perspectives it is "wrong", hence my suggestion that this be in the aforementioned Religion, Politics & Socioeconomic Climate (http://forum.beyond3d.com/forumdisplay.php?f=27) section of B3D.
All I can do is make my purchasing decisions based on the information i have in front of me. If i find that Best Buy or an alternative chain were doing it as well, then eventually i'd be left with no alternative but to go online.
No, i only have proof of this, so I can't outirght say they all are doing it, even though they may very well be.
You say you try to make your purchasing decisions based on the information in front of you, but you are not consistent in what you consider to be solid information or "proof". Already, there are members, myself included that have told you that many companies engage in the offering of incentives to retailers to sell their goods, some over short periods, some for long term. MS, Canon, Epson, Sony, etc. Yet, you decide that there is no proof except for this case of Sony doing it.
I must be missing something here.
Retail outlets are the console/software/etc. manufacturer's sales representatives to the market. They are not hired by the customers to give unbiased data any more than car dealerships are.
Would it be "unjust" if one console manufacturer gave Gamestop a better discount than another did? Would it be unjust if Toyota paid their INDEPENDENT dealerships employees a bonus for selling more? What if that dealership also sold Hondas?
I think expletive is completely out of touch with how sales channels work.
When it comes to sales, sales persons are PAID to represent their products.
expletive
07-Jun-2007, 20:06
Therein lies the problem? To what basis do you say it is wrong? From what perspective? From a business perspective, they're doing what is right to maintain sales. Stockholders see it as something good. From some perspectives it is "right" from some perspectives it is "wrong", hence my suggestion that this be in the aforementioned Religion, Politics & Socioeconomic Climate (http://forum.beyond3d.com/forumdisplay.php?f=27) section of B3D.
I dont think i can state the my basis any more clearly than i have several times arleady, but here goes...
By Gamestop engaging in incentive programs like this one, degrades the potential of a customer to receive unbiased information. That is bad for customers.
I dont care if its good for business, thats their problem.
You say you try to make your purchasing decisions based on the information in front of you, but you are not consistent in what you consider to be solid information or "proof". Already, there are members, myself included that have told you that many companies engage in the offering of incentives to retailers to sell their goods, some over short periods, some for long term. MS, Canon, Epson, Sony, etc. Yet, you decide that there is no proof except for this case of Sony doing it.
I consider this link, along with scanned document, and the conversation with the manager of my local store, solid information. Not what 2nd hand info on the board here says. There may very well be incentive programs that i dont find objectionable as this one, i'll decide as i go.
Why the hell is everyone so eager to defend gamestop anyway? :shock: :???: :lol:
Diamond.G
07-Jun-2007, 20:10
Understood, and none taken, but still, you cant say 'use your brain' to someone like, say, my wife. :) If she wasnt lucky enough to be married to a nerd, she'd be at the mercy of these kids working in these places when she needed buying assistance.
But the real question is does she realize that when going to places like that? ;) Mine has (to an extent).
expletive
07-Jun-2007, 20:16
I must be missing something here.
Retail outlets are the console/software/etc. manufacturer's sales representatives to the market. They are not hired by the customers to give unbiased data any more than car dealerships are.
Would it be "unjust" if one console manufacturer gave Gamestop a better discount than another did? Would it be unjust if Toyota paid their INDEPENDENT dealerships employees a bonus for selling more? What if that dealership also sold Hondas?
I think expletive is completely out of touch with how sales channels work.
When it comes to sales, sales persons are PAID to represent their products.
I see your point and I think what specifically rubs me wrong about this is the propensity for it to propagate FALSE information. Sales incentives make sense to me, "Halo 3 is only 58.99 at gamestop!" becuase MS cut a volume discount with gamestop. Thats a very concrete and factual representation to a consumer. Product X is 58.99 here, product X (or Y) is 59.99 there, very pragmatic decision. But now you are rewarding the salespeople directly for selling the product, armed with nothing but the power of persuasion. To me, that sounds like nothing good comes out of it for the consumer and exponentially increases the chance that my wife is goung to be outright lied to.
Don't you think it compromises the ability or likelihood that someone is going to get objective buying advice from the employees?
Do you mean to say that this ain't happening already? C'mon, 'objective buying advice' is a myth! People were giving biased advice based on their own opinion long before any SONY deal 'compromise'.
I think Mize is right. You need to get in touch with how sales channels work - because if you were, you'd know that this is the way of the norm. Retailers, no, any sales channel run incentives all the time!
Is it fair that only the *new* customers to sign up for the phone deal go into the draw to win the car? What about me? I've been with the company for 6yrs already!
SONY is only doing what any good company would do - ensure that their product sells. And if that means buying mindshare from Gamestop, then so be it! They're not the first, and won't be the last! Sad fact.
I must be missing something here.
Yep.
Retail outlets are the console/software/etc. manufacturer's sales representatives to the market. They are not hired by the customers to give unbiased data any more than car dealerships are.
They are representatives of their employers not of the suppliers.
Would it be "unjust" if one console manufacturer gave Gamestop a better discount than another did? Would it be unjust if Toyota paid their INDEPENDENT dealerships employees a bonus for selling more? What if that dealership also sold Hondas?
Volume discounts are very common and can benefit the consumer. The current situation cannot benefit the consumer.
I think expletive is completely out of touch with how sales channels work.
When it comes to sales, sales persons are PAID to represent their products.
See the first point.
Manufacturors are in the business of making money on the stuff they sell. They can sell this direct, or they can sell this to retailers who take a bit of margin but nevertheless generally help them sell their stuff better.
Retailers are in the business of making money on the stuff they sell. The higher the profits the better. You cannot ask from them to do the work that consumer organisations are invented for, unless you do so buy going to a shop that uses this method as a means to create a more loyal client-base.
Consumer organisations and stuff like review magazines and websites (although being ad-based, they are still vulnerable to corruption) are in the business of providing consumers with objective information on the value and quality of products sold by manufacturors through retailers.
Any questions? If not, let's move on. ;)
tha_con
07-Jun-2007, 21:19
Has someone actually made a successful argument that this isnt wrong? I've seen a lot of 'well so does Microsoft' and some 'c'est la vie". Let me check again...
You want a successful argument? Here you go.
These kind of employed tactics improve competition between companies to better provide for their retailers, which directly corresponds to better sales for the multiple home consoles available through pushed sales. These sales promote competition between the major console manufacturers and software developers, which, in the end, only benefits us, the gamer.
There. Please, in the words of Ali G...Relax ya' body.
gokickrocks
07-Jun-2007, 21:45
what i find funny is that the incentive is pathetic
they get a choice of sony published games (no ps3 system listed), which currently is at 4 games: motorstorm, resistance, genji and nba 07
if the employee even owns a ps3, he/she most likely already has resistance and probably motorstorm as well and seeing how every gamestop employee that i interacted with (which they initiated the convo, i just want to get a game and get out) are caught up on their reviews, they'd avoid genji (which i heard wasnt bad except for annoying camera angles that just pissed people off)
...im assuming that they get to save up their reward points (~ $350), so i guess they can hold off on their choices, but to not be able to apply their points towards a system, i dont see much of an incentive for now
SugarCoat
07-Jun-2007, 22:04
what i find funny is that the incentive is pathetic
they get a choice of sony published games (no ps3 system listed), which currently is at 4 games: motorstorm, resistance, genji and nba 07
if the employee even owns a ps3, he/she most likely already has resistance and probably motorstorm as well and seeing how every gamestop employee that i interacted with (which they initiated the convo, i just want to get a game and get out) are caught up on their reviews, they'd avoid genji (which i heard wasnt bad except for annoying camera angles that just pissed people off)
...im assuming that they get to save up their reward points (~ $350), so i guess they can hold off on their choices, but to not be able to apply their points towards a system, i dont see much of an incentive for now
not to mention they problably get the games at cost any time they want which makes the value even less.
archangelmorph
08-Jun-2007, 09:44
I see your point and I think what specifically rubs me wrong about this is the propensity for it to propagate FALSE information. Sales incentives make sense to me, "Halo 3 is only 58.99 at gamestop!" becuase MS cut a volume discount with gamestop. Thats a very concrete and factual representation to a consumer. Product X is 58.99 here, product X (or Y) is 59.99 there, very pragmatic decision. But now you are rewarding the salespeople directly for selling the product, armed with nothing but the power of persuasion. To me, that sounds like nothing good comes out of it for the consumer and exponentially increases the chance that my wife is goung to be outright lied to.
Expletive I understand your distaste for the situation but unfortunately thats life.. This kind of thing happens in all areas of retail, much much more than many seem to realise..
Ever walked into a PC store and asked the clerk which brand is better? You think the one he would lead you to ACTUALLY holds some kind of technical or social advantage with respect to some of the others? (not you personally.. I'm sure most of the people around here build their own rigs.. :grin: )
My point is this..
What's happening is good business.. The consumer comes in with a need and is persuaded towards purchasing a top brand product (Hey! at least it is a Top Brand Quality product!!).. If they buy it and they like it then everybody wins.. If they don't they'll bring it back to the store and get a refund before walking out again with something else..
At the end of the day this only really affects people who are either torn on their decision of which console to get AND they aren't fully aware of what each one has to offer.. OR people who generally don't have a clue about any of the consoles and in that case they'll either agree to the purchase of stick two fingers up at the cost of the machine (which is pretty hard to swallow for the average joe regardless of how much you try to persuade him!!).. Not only that, most of the people who work in these stores are hardly "world class" salesmen and so most people won't be very easily swayed into slapping down £425 on something they have doubts about..
And people who are wise and already know what they want will walk into the store, pick up the console they're looking for and buy it without ever needed to ask for any "supposed informed oppinion"..
Personally I say "Well done Sony!!" because they really have to do SOMETHING to get rid of the pretty poor retail mindshare which already plagues most of these stores..
When I went into GAME to buy my Xbox360, I was considerably shocked by overhearing a store clerk completely blast (i.e. only having negative things to say about it, and in some cases even lying about it) the PS3 when asked which console would make a better purchase between that and the 360.. Most of these store clerks don't really care about the needs of the consumer anyway and in fact seek to push their own agendas/oppinions onto consumers in an attempt to demonstrate their self-proclaimed expertise (on an industry they sit at the arse [& can't see over it] of..) to make them feel good about themselves..
IMO It's this retail mindshare (supressing the enthusiasm of the uninformed) which could be playing a rather significant factor to the poor uptake of PS3 brand.. Sure the higher-ups in retail have a much warmer oppinion towards the brand, but unfortunately they aren't the ones "selling" these units to the consumers who are just looking for the next best thing in consumer electronic entertainment..
They are representatives of their employers not of the suppliers.
Word games are fun? Their employers represent the suppliers - duh! Then they hire employees to do this job. If it's not the retailer's employees job to "sell you" then whose job is it?
I see your point and I think what specifically rubs me wrong about this is the propensity for it to propagate FALSE information. Sales incentives make sense to me, "Halo 3 is only 58.99 at gamestop!" becuase MS cut a volume discount with gamestop. Thats a very concrete and factual representation to a consumer. Product X is 58.99 here, product X (or Y) is 59.99 there, very pragmatic decision. But now you are rewarding the salespeople directly for selling the product, armed with nothing but the power of persuasion. To me, that sounds like nothing good comes out of it for the consumer and exponentially increases the chance that my wife is goung to be outright lied to.
Unfortunately you just described a common practice known as "selling."
One sells what they're paid to sell. If I work for a Kia dealership Kia's are the best, etc.
Hence the age old saying "buyer beware"
Here's a point.
A couple folks here want store employees to be unbiased customer consultants.
Unfortunately that's decidedly not what they're paid to do. They're paid to sell as much as possible at the highest possible margin, period.
So for those who don't like this just start a "console consultants" business where people pay you or your employees for unbiased consultations.
Nice idea on paper but you're competing with thousands of web sites providing the same service for free.
expletive
08-Jun-2007, 12:45
Unfortunately you just described a common practice known as "selling."
One sells what they're paid to sell. If I work for a Kia dealership Kia's are the best, etc.
Hence the age old saying "buyer beware"
Youre missing an important point and thats that in a store that sells multiple brands the selling is more about getting you to buy "something" then getting you to buy "this one particular thing even if i have to lie about it".
If i walk into a kia dealer i EXPECT that they are going to try and convince me to buy a kia because thats all they sell, BUT they still try and sell me the RIGHT kia. If they dont do their job in this respect, i'm less likely to buy from them again. However, when i have bought cars at one of these huge 'automall' type places that sell multiple brands, they have always asked me i'm looking for and what i need it for first, then showed me cars that fit my needs.
When someone who is relying on advice walks into a gamestop, the expectation is that they are getting unbiased assistance. In my opinion, it behooves Gamestop to have their employees be as impartial as possible. If youre running a brick and mortar store one of the supposed "benefits" is the 'helpful and knowledgeable sales staff". Why theyre putting their sales staff in a position where they cant be helpful or impartial is somewhat puzzling. Is it really worth flushing one of their competitive advantages over Amazon.com down the toilet?
Unfortunately that's decidedly not what they're paid to do. They're paid to sell as much as possible at the highest possible margin, period.
That's not always true. The retailer's job is to position the products from a pricing and 'value-add' (return policy, best selection, etc) standpoint to drive the most sales. A LOT of times the salesperson's job is to simply guide the consumer throughthe decision making process. In a lot of companies thats what they want from their salespeople. Thats why Circuit City stopped with a commission-based compensation structure. The employees in gamestop are not on commission, and even though they do the nonsense 'pre-order and strategy guide' upsell at the register, i'm sure if you asked a divisional manager hed tell you thats their role.
Dealerships carry multiple lines - have to in order to stay in business. The incentives to salespeople vary by brand and model. Same as ever.
The salesperson's goal is to maximize their own income.
Besides, at these places your talking (stereotyping here) to some of the dumbest people on the planet - why would anyone rely on their advice? It's like having a circuit city employee help you with estate planning.
When someone who is relying on advice walks into a gamestop, the expectation is that they are getting unbiased assistance.
Anyone who walks into any sales situation as the prospect with such expectations should rush to Best Buy or Circuit City and fill out an application ASAP.
After that just head over to the auto dealership and let them tell you what you need too.
expletive
08-Jun-2007, 13:11
Anyone who walks into any sales situation as the prospect with such expectations should rush to Best Buy or Circuit City and fill out an application ASAP.
After that just head over to the auto dealership and let them tell you what you need too.
Do you honestly think that any relevant % of the population is on forums discussion the pros and cons of the stuff in gamestop? Go stand in one for an hour so and look at the adult clientele that goes in there. Then tell me if they aren't relying on the salesperson for some or all of their needs. I'm in my mid-30s with kids, these are the people I 'hang out' with now and trust me, theyre all lost when it comes to this stuff. If they dont call me for advice theyre recounting a story where "the salesperson said blah blah blah so i went with this one". THAT'S the reality.
Do you honestly think that any relevant % of the population is on forums discussion the pros and cons of the stuff in gamestop? Go stand in one for an hour so and look at the adult clientele that goes in there. Then tell me if they aren't relying on the salesperson for some or all of their needs. I'm in my mid-30s with kids, these are the people I 'hang out' with now and trust me, theyre all lost when it comes to this stuff. If they dont call me for advice theyre recounting a story where "the salesperson said blah blah blah so i went with this one". THAT'S the reality.
The fact that they are uninformed in their purchase process does not put the burden of such education on the "other side" of the sale.
These same people probably walk in with a full "Edmunds.com" report before buying a car and probably read Consumer Reports before buying a refridgerator. If they don't then shame on them.
Do you really think that Lowes is going to junk a known poor-reliability appliance or let customers know it has been panned in Consumer Reports?
That is NOT their job. The buyer must do their own research.
Your idealistic notions are simply that.
expletive
08-Jun-2007, 14:59
The fact that they are uninformed in their purchase process does not put the burden of such education on the "other side" of the sale.
These same people probably walk in with a full "Edmunds.com" report before buying a car and probably read Consumer Reports before buying a refridgerator. If they don't then shame on them.
Do you really think that Lowes is going to junk a known poor-reliability appliance or let customers know it has been panned in Consumer Reports?
That is NOT their job. The buyer must do their own research.
Your idealistic notions are simply that.
You are confusing a subset of reality with 'sound business practices'.
A key component of any successful business is repeat customers. Good salespeople (and good companies) will do right by the customer, and also be empowered by the organization to do so. Lowes doesnt have a whole lot to gain by pushing an appliance they know will get returned or reflect poorly on their brand. Maybe youve never shopped for an appliance but the salespeople there DO often talk about reliability and make recommendations based on it. This is not some pie-in-the-sky ideology, its how some of the most successful companies in the world do business - customer first. You're underestimating the importance that companies will place on the integrity of their brand, and what consumers place on it.
Go look at a list of the top run companies and youll find they all have a strong focus on employee and customer satsifaction. I'm sorry that you're satsified with snake-oil salesman amd not demanding more from the places you shop, but i'm not. Does it really impact me? Not so much because I am an educated consumer. However, I do like the convenience the store offers and I want to see it stick around, rather than go out of business.
I think, if gamestop continues down this road, their already tarnished employee reputation will sink to new depths, and will be a relevant factor in its failure.
Lowes has a HUGE interest in selling sub-par appliances - it's called inventory. You don't sell it you lose money, period. Lowes can't return stock to GE or Maytag or whomever just because Consumer Reports gives it a bad review!
Your utopian approach to the sales process is neato, but not reality. I'm not happy with snake oil at all - that's why I educate myself and become my own best ally in the sales process.
As for "top companies" - baloney! Dell gets high marks but has consistently used "low bidder" components. Honda gets high marks but has one of the sleaziest dealer networks for new car sales. It's never about the reality it's about the perception of your company and the best snake oil salespeople are never "found out" because they're simply just that good.
Build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door? Nah. Sell a cheapo and convince people its the best is what (sadly) works.
Word games are fun? Their employers represent the suppliers - duh! Then they hire employees to do this job. If it's not the retailer's employees job to "sell you" then whose job is it?
It is not a word game. It is a recognition of the relationships at hand. A sound business values its relationship with its customers over all others. Look at the success of Walmart. When they extract lower costs from suppliers they pass that on to consumers. They don't give employees direct incentives to sell higher margin products. It seems to have paid off for them.
From Gamestop's perspective, I wonder why they would participate with this. Having a third party compensate your employee's does nothing for the bottom line. The company would be better served by selling the console with the highest attach rate.
expletive
08-Jun-2007, 15:42
Youre looking at the Lowe's example at a specific point in time but it becomes a more strategic equation for them. Decisions are made constantly on which brands to carry and at which pricepoints. The 'we have too much inventory or X right now' is not about corporate culture or how they expect their employees to act. What gamestop is doing here is knowingly putting their salesforce in a position to put themselves before the customer.
The other 2 examples you gave don't particularly resonate (with me anyway) because for Dell, lowest bidder doesnt always equal lowest quality. Their reliability will ultimately be judged on the ACTUAL reliability, not on the fact that they took the best bid for gigabit ethernet chips. (anecdotally, from my experience, Dell's corporate support is completely top notch.) It could very well be lowest bidder on a specific part which has minimum reliability qualities.
And Honda, i don't know how you objectively measure 'sleaziest salepeople around' but their cars, are consistently among the most reliable and that's why the get 'high marks'.
Perception is important but over time, the cream tends to rise to the top and youll see that play out as companies sometimes cyclically exchange places in the "top whatever".
tha_con
08-Jun-2007, 15:42
So my post has been completely ignored? Wow. Awesome.
I guess he doesn't really want to hear a voice of reason, he only wants to hear agreement or nothing at all.
Lowes has a HUGE interest in selling sub-par appliances - it's called inventory. You don't sell it you lose money, period. Lowes can't return stock to GE or Maytag or whomever just because Consumer Reports gives it a bad review!
They also have a huge interest in not perpetuating the sale of substandard merchandise, as it reflects on them.
Perception is important but over time, the cream tends to rise to the top and youll see that play out as companies sometimes cyclically exchange places in the "top whatever".
It's a difficult argument. Apple had to open their own stores to make sure sales people pay attention to their products. I guess Windows' dominance and price point (translates to better deal flow), coupled with insufficient knowledge about Apple products encouraged the sale people to focus solely on pushing PC.
In general (Whether it's for PS3, TV, or a toaster), channel programs like this simply provide incentives for sales people to be more effective. We can highlight the bad apples, but there are good sales people too. i.e., As part of this exercise, more sales people -- good and bad -- will likely look at PS3 closely to understand its salient points, instead of spewing nonsense. I don't see what's wrong with this.
Sales-oriented companies sometimes do introduce individual incentives. Each sales person generally has his/her own way to sell, with or without the incentives. We as consumers may or may not agree with their methods, but I don't believe the incentive is strong enough (or unjust) to make good sales people gone wild.
rbushner
08-Jun-2007, 16:19
Mize, I have my products in retail, those establishments don't represent me, they sell my products, there is a big difference. Alot of the large retail chains extract more money from the manufacturers than the customers. Who do you think pays for the newspaper ads, endcaps and rebates?
Allowing a manufacturer to give kickbacks is a conflict of interest, especially when you advertise your knowledgable sales associates. I admit it is the way alot of the large retail chains do business, but it is NOT the only way, because businesses operated much differently 20 years ago. When people start bringing up car salesmen as a 'normal' example, you know ethics are pretty much toast.
Fair treatment of customers and employees is a good thing. It creates customer and employee loyalty.
crazygambit
08-Jun-2007, 17:37
Seriously, who cares? Why should you care companies are giving incentives to teenagers to sell you their crap? Teenagers with like 10 minutes of training that aren't qualified to speak with authority about anything anyway. The most they can offer is their opinion, which you should disregard anyway. Worst case scenario you end up buying an entertaintment system that wasn't the best fit for your needs (that you can take back anyway) boo hoo.
What you should REALLY worry about is that pharmaceutical companies do the exact same thing with doctors (and those are real incentives, not consoles and games crap). The only difference is that a doctor has several years of training and specific knowledge that the average person simply can't match. So when they prescribe you medicine (usualy the most expensive one, instead of the generic that does the same) that might not even be the best fit for you, but the one they have the incentive to prescribe that's close enough, you can't simply disregard their opinion. Even if you somehow find out later you got screwed, you can't change the prescription without another doctors appointment. I'd say that is seriously evil, incentives for retail people to sell your product? Can't say I care too much.
I think I have seen this hinted at, but I just wanted to state it again in my own way.
The main arguing point against this type of tactic is that it is "bad" for the consumer. I disagree. This type of sales incetive does not have to be bad for the consumer. For instance, selling more PS3s is not bad for those who own PS3s. Those same consumers often purchase games from stores like Gamestop. Selling another PS3 increases the userbase and gives manufacturers more reasons to make games. So Gamestop could be said to be doing a service to all their customers that own PS3s by pushing the system.
That is a stretched example - but there are other more concrete benefits. First, this type of incentive actually motivates sales representatives to learn about the other consoles. While the accusation that they "lie" to sell consoles is entertaining, most sales people I know don't bother to lie. They research to find the good qualities and emphasize those. If it is a product they are not interested in selling, they often have a bare minimum of knowledge required to answer basic questions. So customers often end up better informed about a product the person has an incentive to sell than one they don't.
Anotehr benefit of such an arrangement is that it stops the spreading of false information. I don't know about you, but it has been my experience that many employees at stores like this repeat what they have heard. Durring the time Sony was not running the promotion, I heard such things as "The PS3 is losing 50% of its units to overheating" or "They are pulling out of the market this summer" from gamestop employees. When I asked about it, they were all well intentioned but had not done more than listen to customers comming in for their information. If this type of promotion can stop this type of information, it is well worth it.
In the end, it is the sales person himself that determines whether any given business practice is "bad" or "good" from the consumer. It is not company policy. I have sales people I trust a lot. I will ask them questions. I have others I avoid like the plague. Many work at the same stores and are influenced by the same policy. It just is not correct to blame a store for implementing a good business policy because a sales person "might" use it as a stepping stone for bad consumer practice. The sales people who do those things will find reasons to do them anyway.
The main arguing point against this type of tactic is that it is "bad" for the consumer. I disagree. This type of sales incetive does not have to be bad for the consumer. For instance, selling more PS3s is not bad for those who own PS3s. Those same consumers often purchase games from stores like Gamestop. Selling another PS3 increases the userbase and gives manufacturers more reasons to make games. So Gamestop could be said to be doing a service to all their customers that own PS3s by pushing the system.
You are forgetting that the influence that such an incentive is geared towards is not towards those who already own a PS3 but someone considering buying a console.
That is a stretched example - but there are other more concrete benefits. First, this type of incentive actually motivates sales representatives to learn about the other consoles. While the accusation that they "lie" to sell consoles is entertaining, most sales people I know don't bother to lie. They research to find the good qualities and emphasize those. If it is a product they are not interested in selling, they often have a bare minimum of knowledge required to answer basic questions. So customers often end up better informed about a product the person has an incentive to sell than one they don't.
In the end, it is the sales person himself that determines whether any given business practice is "bad" or "good" from the consumer. It is not company policy. I have sales people I trust a lot. I will ask them questions. I have others I avoid like the plague. Many work at the same stores and are influenced by the same policy. It just is not correct to blame a store for implementing a good business policy because a sales person "might" use it as a stepping stone for bad consumer practice. The sales people who do those things will find reasons to do them anyway.
No. It is the consumer whom decides what is good or bad for themselves. What you are suggesting is like your fathers Oncologist saying he is not going to treat you fathers cancer so you can get your inheritance faster.
You are forgetting that the influence that such an incentive is geared towards is not towards those who already own a PS3 but someone considering buying a console.
Actually, the incentive is not geared towards someone buying the console, but those who are selling the console.
I was pointing out that there is a benifit to those who already own the console if another gets sold. Hence the person selling the console is helping those who already own them. If the person selling the console sells games to people who own PS3s - that means he is helping his customers.
The argument that it hurts the consumer requires that the store selling the console has no other customers who own the console.
No. It is the consumer whom decides what is good or bad for themselves. What you are suggesting is like your fathers Oncologist saying he is not going to treat you fathers cancer so you can get your inheritance faster.
This has nothing to do with what I said. As a matter of fact it is so far from what I said I have trouble understanding how you got there.
Quick example:
Consumer A walks into a store wanting to buy a console.
Sales Person 1 decides that to get a reward he is going to lie, cheat, swindle, and do everything possible to sell a particular system to the customer.
Sales Person 2 knows a lot about a particular system because of an incentive. He passes that information on to the consumer who then chooses to buy the system as the best to meet his needs.
Now, who decided what was good or bad for the consumer? In both cases, the consumer got the same system. In both cases, the consumer was affected by the promotion. So which is good or bad?
In one case, the consumer left without an understanding of what he was buying. That was "Bad" for the consumer in the sense that you mean. He will probably get frustrated as he discovers what he bought is not what he thought it was. In the other, the consumer left educated about what he was buying. He will get exactly what he was expecting and feel good about his purchase.
The key here - who decided which experience the customer had? The sales person - not the customer.
An example with a doctor would be as follows.
A doctor goes to a drug lunch (drug lunches are when a large drug company purchases lunch for medical professionals in return for those professionals attending a short seminar on their drug).
Docter A decides that to get more drug lunches, he is going to push the drug the company sells at all costs and begins to perscribe it more than the generic.
Doctor B learns that the generics he has been perscribing can vary up to 20% the given strength of the name brand. He begins to perscribe the name brand more often for people who are likely to need the entire dose.
In both cases the doctors increase the number of perscriptions given. In both cases, the patient sees the same result. However, in the second case patients actually benefit from it. In the first, they may or may not benefit from it.
Once again, the sales person will decide whether he acts honestly with the promotion or whether he acts dishonestly - not the consumer. The sales person decides whether or not the consumer will benefit from the promotion - not vice versa. If your argument is that the consumer is hurt by dishonest business practices, then the ONLY person who can be responsible is the sales person. No one else in the world is capable of making that person act dishonestly.
expletive
11-Jun-2007, 22:11
Actually, the incentive is not geared towards someone buying the console, but those who are selling the console.
I was pointing out that there is a benifit to those who already own the console if another gets sold. Hence the person selling the console is helping those who already own them. If the person selling the console sells games to people who own PS3s - that means he is helping his customers.
The argument that it hurts the consumer requires that the store selling the console has no other customers who own the console.
Not that i think its a particularly compelling point but by that logic, it subsequently hurts owners of other consoles. What about Wii and 360 owners? Screw those guys? :???: (which, incidentally, is a vast majority of next (current?) gen console owners now)
Clearly, at the end of the day, the salesperson decides how they will act. That's not the point. The point is that this introduces unnecessary incentive for those that have the propensity to put the customer LAST with misinformation, to do exactly that.
Shifty Geezer
11-Jun-2007, 22:13
Quick example:
...
Now, who decided what was good or bad for the consumer? In both cases, the consumer got the same system.That's all well and good as long as both further the same end. The problem lies in the 'influenced' opinion being non-ideal with the customer's wants.
eg. A customer goes into a game shop wanting a console to play HD games and doesn't care for online.
Sales Person 1 tells them PS3 is the console they want because it has a zillion features and is the most powerful and has BRD with 100 GB storage and has a HDD and motion controls and is the future and...yadayada...and is great value and such. Sales Person A says this because he is paid a bribe by Sony to do it, or because he's a fanboy and hates MS, or some other bias. The customer spends $700 on a PS3 with a couple of games.
Sales Person 2 is unbiased and tells them PS3 has a lot of functionality but has a price-tag to match. XB360 is well known for its online capabilities, but you don't need to go online. The HDD model is the ebst value for money, but if the customer doesn't care for online content or media functions, the Core will suit them. The customer then decides from the options available which will suit them and their budget, and opts for the XB360 Core with memory card, spending $350 on a Core with a couple of games.
The difference with the latter is the customer having the choice from the information available. The ends don't justify the means. You just get lucky if your choice you try to imprint on a customer happens to fit them, but ultimately they should be making informed decisions. It could be the customer is happy with their purchase of a PS3 because they never learn that XB360 could have served their purposes for less money. Or maybe they come to use BRD playback. But it ought to be their choice to make. Of course, the chances of getting unbaised and well informed opinions in any store are limited. It's normally daft to rely on salespersons suggestions, whether they're in incentive schemes or not.
tha_con
11-Jun-2007, 22:18
Point blank, if a consumer is willing to throw down $400 to $600 on a videogame console without knowing anything themselves, they can afford it, and they very well deserve to be sold whatever the sales employee talks them into.
Because anyone else who is going to drop $400 to $600 on a console KNOWS what they are looking for and getting into. Soccer Moms, afterall, are not buying the 360 or PS3.
Clearly, at the end of the day, the salesperson decides how they will act. That's not the point. The point is that this introduces incentive for those that have the propensity to put the customer LAST with misinformation, to do exactly that.
Hmmm... sales people already decide what best (from their own perspectives) to sell based on the margin and their commission. Yet not all sales people behave selfishly.
As usual, there are positive and negative sides to everything. The incentives may also motivate busy/clueless salespeople to understand PS3 better, and be more effective in selling them to the right people.
expletive
11-Jun-2007, 22:27
Point blank, if a consumer is willing to throw down $400 to $600 on a videogame console without knowing anything themselves, they can afford it, and they very well deserve to be sold whatever the sales employee talks them into.
Because anyone else who is going to drop $400 to $600 on a console KNOWS what they are looking for and getting into. Soccer Moms, afterall, are not buying the 360 or PS3.
You're approaching this from a very narrow and shortsighted perspective. Its not specifically about PS3s but the precedent it sets for what gamestop will allow. What if they did this for EA sports games vs. 2k (or whomever)? Dont you think a bunch of salespeople telling customers that the EA version of basketball is FAR superior to 2K sports based on a sales incentive would be very bad?
Don't pigeon hole this example to the PS3, think broader and how it could hurt smaller devs or manufacturers with superior products down the line too.
expletive
11-Jun-2007, 22:31
Hmmm... sales people already decide what best (from their own perspectives) to sell based on the margin and their commission. Yet not all sales people behave selfishly.
As usual, there are positive and negative sides to everything. The incentives may also motivate busy/clueless salespeople to understand PS3 better, and be more effective in selling them to the right people.
Not if they dont get a commission and not if the company puts customer satisfaction ahead of margins between competing products, which is the way i would EXPECT a company to behave. Even if they are on commission, they are better off making ANY sale by listening to the customers needs than trying to push something they dont need on them.
If understanding the PS3 is the problem, its not best solved by an incentive like this, its solved by training, or firing people who dont know the facts about the products the sell. It is their JOB to know that information. Otherwise you get something like this? :
Company: "Make sure we're giving our customers all the information they need to make an informed purchasing decision"
Employee: "But i dont know anything about the PS3"
Company: "well, this is your....um job to learn that"
Employee: "i dont wanna"
Company: "what if we let Sony give you credit to buy their games if you learn it?"
Employee: "ok!"
infinity4
11-Jun-2007, 22:34
salespersons tend to brainwash people, but hey, as far as they don't lie with their comments they are in no trouble imo. if this is multi hundred dollars/pounds equipment customers are purchasing, it is always stupid not to do unbiased research to see what is best for them. and it isn't only salesperson who brainwash people anyway, children brainwash them too :twisted:
my point: err, don't make decisions based on what you only know few about, parents are hardly likely to know much about gaming stuff. they definitely need good advisors.
Shifty Geezer
11-Jun-2007, 22:38
You're approaching this from a very narrow and shortsighted perspective. Its not specifically about PS3s but the precedent it sets for what gamestop will allow.How is it a precedent for future possibilities when it's already common practice? Sony aren't leading the way in trying to influence sales staff with incentives - they're just following the business practice rulebook.
Not if they dont get a commission and not if the company puts customer satisfaction ahead of margins between competing products, which is the way i would EXPECT a company to behave. Even if they are on commission, they are better off making ANY sale by listening to the customers needs than trying to push something they dont need on them.
Still doesn't change my point. If they are not on commission and they do a sloppy job in selling PS3, then the incentive may work better. If they are already doing a good job, then the incentive rewards them for their hard work.
If some are pushy, the incentive could possibly encourage them further... but customers may get turned off. It's all balanced by human factors.
As for what work best for sales people and their companies, they should know better. Everyone already knows they need to pay attention to customer needs to sell better. Everyone has their own selling style and approaches. That's why I don't think the incentive will ruin Gamestop or their customer experience. In practice, the incentive merely serves to encourage them to explore/think/act better to close a deal (e.g., It is possible for a pushy salesman to ask, "Am I too pushy ?" in the process).
If understanding the PS3 is the problem, its not best solved by an incentive like this, its solved by training, or firing people who dont know the facts about the products the sell. It is their JOB to know that information. Otherwise you get something like this? :
Many performance-related issues can be fine tuned by tweaking the reward structure. Training can only go so far. Also I don't know if it's easy to hire and retrain game store sale people (In other retail industry, turn over can be high). At the end of the day, you seem to be concerned about the incentive bastardizing people's selling approach. Do you have any first hand experience ?
That's all well and good as long as both further the same end. The problem lies in the 'influenced' opinion being non-ideal with the customer's wants.
I understand that - and this is the heart of the problem I was trying to point out. The only way you can assign an absolute "bad" and "good" to this is if the sales person does something they "shouldn't". (Keep in mind that the words in quotation marks are subjective under any circumstance, hence the quotation marks).
I can come up with equally valid examples where the 'influenced' opinion comes up exactly within the customers wants, or where the sales person learns more about an individual product and is able to give better answers because of such promotions. This is why I claimed such promotions aren't always bad for the customer. Yes, they can be bad. They don't need to be though. When you boil things down to their simplest parts - the root cause of all of these problems is an uninformed consumer. That can hardly be blamed on a company running a promotion.
I am also not saying I expect all consumers to be 100% educated on everything they buy. There just isn't any way to be. I know I am not, so I work hard to make sure I can trust various retail outlets. Even when I know exactly what I want I will often ask questions just to find out how much the sales person really knows. I've had some that were honest to the point of saying "Well, there is an employee incentive program on this model right now, but I think you'd like this other one to be honest". I've had others who have tried to push products that obviously don't suit my needs. Guess where I shop - especially when I don't know the details on every product out there?
At the end of the day, every consumer must accept responsibility for their own actions. That is harder in some cases with others. With medical problems many times you have to "trust" what someone says. You can get multiple opinions, but in the end we aren't doctors. No such excuse exists for purchasing a toy like a console though. If you are buying a toy, you should understand what you are buying.
expletive
12-Jun-2007, 01:40
How is it a precedent for future possibilities when it's already common practice? Sony aren't leading the way in trying to influence sales staff with incentives - they're just following the business practice rulebook.
Well I guess not a precedent in the truest sense of the word i.e. "the first time it had ever been done". But to me, its a wakeup call of what actually is being allowed. Personally, i had never heard of anything like THIS happening. Also, its not about Sony, its about gamestop. No need to defend Sony, theyre just maximizing what the channel will allow, this is about gamestop.
Still doesn't change my point. If they are not on commission and they do a sloppy job in selling PS3, then the incentive may work better. If they are already doing a good job, then the incentive rewards them for their hard work.
If some are pushy, the incentive could possibly encourage them further... but customers may get turned off. It's all balanced by human factors.
As for what work best for sales people and their companies, they should know better. Everyone already knows they need to pay attention to customer needs to sell better. Everyone has their own selling style and approaches. That's why I don't think the incentive will ruin Gamestop or their customer experience. In practice, the incentive merely serves to encourage them to explore/think/act better to close a deal (e.g., It is possible for a pushy salesman to ask, "Am I too pushy ?" in the process).?
Youre missing the point that THIS promotion incents the employees to be partial to a particular product rather than the customers needs. The reward system should reward employees equally for sales goals and it should come from within the company.
Many performance-related issues can be fine tuned by tweaking the reward structure. Training can only go so far. Also I don't know if it's easy to hire and retrain game store sale people (In other retail industry, turn over can be high). At the end of the day, you seem to be concerned about the incentive bastardizing people's selling approach. Do you have any first hand experience ?
Again, if theres an issue with performance it should be addressed at the company level and down. It shouldnt be addressed with a vendor program that promotes partiality.
Yes my first 2 jobs out of college were in sales. One was for a large candy company in NA, the other was for a large temporary staffing company. Then i became a nerd and started posting on forums.
Well I guess not a precedent in the truest sense of the word i.e. "the first time it had ever been done". But to me, its a wakeup call of what actually is being allowed. Personally, i had never heard of anything like THIS happening. Also, its not about Sony, its about gamestop. No need to defend Sony, theyre just maximizing what the channel will allow, this is about gamestop.
:| bu... but that has been the case since the concept of retail shop was borned eons ago. Different product has different margin, shelf life, ... etc. Even if a sales person is not commissioned, the boss of a retail shop may have a slant towards a particular product and may instruct/incent his staff to push a particular brand. A retail shop also has "promotional" period with different vendors from time to time too. So it is very common for a sales person to be biased towards various products at any one time.
He/she needs to serve the customers' needs while making a few more bucks. This is day to day business, with or without the incentive.
Youre missing the point that THIS promotion incents the employees to be partial to a particular product rather than the customers needs. The reward system should reward employees equally for sales goals and it should come from within the company.
Again, if theres an issue with performance it should be addressed at the company level and down. It shouldnt be addressed with a vendor program that promotes partiality.
See above.
Actually, the incentive is not geared towards someone buying the console, but those who are selling the console.
It is incentive for the sales person and influence towards the consumer
I was pointing out that there is a benefit to those who already own the console if another gets sold. Hence the person selling the console is helping those who already own them. If the person selling the console sells games to people who own PS3s - that means he is helping his customers.
Then you must also agree that that benefit extends to the community of any console that the consumer buys. Which is why it is of no significance.
The argument that it hurts the consumer requires that the store selling the console has no other customers who own the console.
See above.
This has nothing to do with what I said. As a matter of fact it is so far from what I said I have trouble understanding how you got there.
Quick example:
Consumer A walks into a store wanting to buy a console.
Sales Person 1 decides that to get a reward he is going to lie, cheat, swindle, and do everything possible to sell a particular system to the customer.
Sales Person 2 knows a lot about a particular system because of an incentive. He passes that information on to the consumer who then chooses to buy the system as the best to meet his needs.
Now, who decided what was good or bad for the consumer? In both cases, the consumer got the same system. In both cases, the consumer was affected by the promotion. So which is good or bad?
In one case, the consumer left without an understanding of what he was buying. That was "Bad" for the consumer in the sense that you mean. He will probably get frustrated as he discovers what he bought is not what he thought it was. In the other, the consumer left educated about what he was buying. He will get exactly what he was expecting and feel good about his purchase.
The key here - who decided which experience the customer had? The sales person - not the customer.
They are both bad. Number one is self explanatory. Number two because the job function of the sales person is to be knowledgeable about all the products his/her company sells. Not just the ones he is getting rewarded for selling.
An example with a doctor would be as follows.
A doctor goes to a drug lunch (drug lunches are when a large drug company purchases lunch for medical professionals in return for those professionals attending a short seminar on their drug).
Docter A decides that to get more drug lunches, he is going to push the drug the company sells at all costs and begins to perscribe it more than the generic.
Doctor B learns that the generics he has been perscribing can vary up to 20% the given strength of the name brand. He begins to perscribe the name brand more often for people who are likely to need the entire dose.
In both cases the doctors increase the number of perscriptions given. In both cases, the patient sees the same result. However, in the second case patients actually benefit from it. In the first, they may or may not benefit from it.
Once again, the sales person will decide whether he acts honestly with the promotion or whether he acts dishonestly - not the consumer. The sales person decides whether or not the consumer will benefit from the promotion - not vice versa. If your argument is that the consumer is hurt by dishonest business practices, then the ONLY person who can be responsible is the sales person. No one else in the world is capable of making that person act dishonestly.
I am aware of many instances where treatment algorithms were ignored. To the detriment of patients. At least the doctors are getting a good lunch.
expletive
12-Jun-2007, 02:38
:| bu... but that has been the case since the concept of retail shop was borned eons ago. Different product has different margin, shelf life, ... etc. Even if a sales person is not commissioned, the boss of a retail shop may have a slant towards a particular product and may instruct/incent his staff to push a particular brand. A retail shop also has "promotional" period with different vendors from time to time too. So it is very common for a sales person to be biased towards various products at any one time.
He/she needs to serve the customers' needs while making a few more bucks. This is day to day business, with or without the incentive.
You're welcome to accept these kinds of business practices on the grounds that its been this way for eons, I wont. If company wants to push a prticular product, promote and price it accordingly to drive sales, don't ask your employees to lie on your behalf.
EDIT:You accept the 'seedy underbelly' of retail as common or even 'good' business practices. Not sure why you aren't demanding more or even acknowledging what is the 'seedy underbelly', as such.
You're making the assumption that the sales person has to lie to get the incentive/close the sale. He (she) doesn't have to.
expletive
12-Jun-2007, 02:43
You're making the assumption that the sales person has to lie to get the incentive. He/she doesn't have to.
Of course not, but it puts them in the position where they are compromised and more likely to, I've stated that several times already.
The sales process is "compromised" (or influenced) by many factors. Said incentive is just one of the many marketing programs people are exposed to. The point I'm trying to make is:
The incentive does not automatically make sales people go bad. It incent them to do a better job. Like many things in life, it can have both positive and negative side effects depending on how it is applied.
It may be overly simplistic to assume a particular selling approach these people will take. Sales guys/gals are already subjected to many pressures and face their customers day to day. I think most should be able to do the right thing in the field.
Again as usual, should the incentive does not work out (e.g., not effective). Sony and Gamestop will refine their strategies (as we should expect them to).
Of course not, but it puts them in the position where they are compromised and more likely to, I've stated that several times already.
With this as a standard I have another question for you.
Oxygen causes the body to "rust" from the inside out. It causes people to be more likely to die. Of course it is not the only factor that causes death, but it can definitely contribute under certain circumstances.
So, according to your definition oxygen is bad right? We should avoid oxygen?
Another example - most forms of surgery make other life altering side effects "more likely". An example would be the increased risk of heart attacks in those who have had open heart surgery. Does that make these types of surgery bad?
Basically the question is simple:
When does the possible inclusion of an outcome justify banning or labeling such practices as bad?
Just so you know I am not picking on you or this practice entirely there was recently a drug called Vioxx that was removed from the market. The drug treated Arthritis among other things. The drug was shown to increase the risk of heart attack. On the other hand, for extreme cases of Arthritis it was the only form that many people said worked for them (there are two other Cox II inhibitors but some claimed the others didn't work). The decision was made to remove it from the market because many people took your stand. The "more likely" was enough to label the drug as bad and force it to be removed. Even people who know the risk cannot take the drug because currently the prevalent attitude is that people aren't smart enough to know for themselves.
It seems you are taking the same stand with this type of practice. You are saying customers aren't smart enough to know for themselves and hence should be protected from a possible negative side effect even though there can be positive side effects as well. I am curious to know where the line is drawn with such protection - because it sounds very 1984ish to me.
rbushner
12-Jun-2007, 05:06
Your analogy is flawed. Look up to crazygambit's "who cares" post. That is exactly what is happening here. It's a kickback.
I don't see expletive calling for legislation, I see him saying he doesn't like the practice and doesn't want to support it.
Saying there are positive benefits to kickbacks, is ummm an interesting philosophy. I'm sure many U.S. military contractors and pharmaceutical companies agree with you.
I don't see how Gamestop allowing kickbacks from Sony to it's employees somehow relates to government controlling individual freedoms. Ironically the absence of ethics coupled with apathy will lead to opressive governments.
Your analogy is flawed. Look up to crazygambit's "who cares" post. That is exactly what is happening here. It's a kickback.
It isn't a kickback, it is a contest. It is far different than a kickback. A kickback is when one party facillitates business for another in return for a portion of that parties earnings. Who could this possibly be a kickback for? Maybe if Sony was selling consoles to Gamestop at a lower price in return for a larger portion of the profit, but that isn't what is happening. Noone is guarenteed anything for running this contest - not even Sony or Gamestop.
It is exactly the situation that I stated. A program exists that is both healthy for Gamestop and Sony. It helps Sony give incentive to Gamestop to sell consoles. It helps Gamestop give incentive to their employees to sell consoles. So what is wrong with it?
The claim is that it is immoral and "wrong" because employees are "more likely to" engage in dishonest behavior to sell a console. Just like my example, Vioxx was removed from the market because those who took it were "more likely to" have a heart attack. In both cases, the parties claiming it is wrong and immoral are trying to protect "innocent" (and by that we really mean ignorant) consumers from potential danger. In both cases, that danger is not guarenteed. Hence my question:
Where do you draw the line with this type of "protection"?
Shifty Geezer
12-Jun-2007, 08:33
Oxygen causes the body to "rust" from the inside out. It causes people to be more likely to die. Of course it is not the only factor that causes death, but it can definitely contribute under certain circumstances.
So, according to your definition oxygen is bad right? We should avoid oxygen?
Another example - most forms of surgery make other life altering side effects "more likely". An example would be the increased risk of heart attacks in those who have had open heart surgery. Does that make these types of surgery bad?
Basically the question is simple:
When does the possible inclusion of an outcome justify banning or labeling such practices as bad?
The thing with the unwanted aspects of the above examples is that they are vastly outweighed by the benefits. If the benefits of having sales staff taking backhanders outweighed the loss of unbiased objectivity, you'd have a point.
rbushner
12-Jun-2007, 14:14
How exactly is the government forcing a product from market in anyway related to this discussion? I don't see anyone saying that at all.
The thing with the unwanted aspects of the above examples is that they are vastly outweighed by the benefits. If the benefits of having sales staff taking backhanders outweighed the loss of unbiased objectivity, you'd have a point.
So in your opinion, such rules are justified when the benefits vastly outweigh the unwanted aspects right?
So what about the Vioxx case. I know many who would argue being able to get out of bed and walk and have a semi-normal life is worth the 10% increased chance of having a heart attack. Doesn't the benefit outweigh the loss? How do you decide when such benefits outweigh the side effects?
expletive
12-Jun-2007, 16:42
So in your opinion, such rules are justified when the benefits vastly outweigh the unwanted aspects right?
So what about the Vioxx case. I know many who would argue being able to get out of bed and walk and have a semi-normal life is worth the 10% increased chance of having a heart attack. Doesn't the benefit outweigh the loss? How do you decide when such benefits outweigh the side effects?
Thats a decision each person has to make for themselves, we're not a liberty to decide. Therefore, if you are a consumer and feel you are better off with salespeople being commissioned by vendors directly, thats your perogative.
However, i've yet to be convinced that those who rely on these salespeople for impartial information would be, though.
The sales process is "compromised" (or influenced) by many factors. Said incentive is just one of the many marketing programs people are exposed to. ).
So why knowingly add another compromise or pressure?
The point I'm trying to make is:
The incentive does not automatically make sales people go bad. It incent them to do a better job. Like many things in life, it can have both positive and negative side effects depending on how it is applied.).
Of course not but I dont see a positive effect of this. "They will learn about the PS3" is not a benefit, its a minimum requirement for the job to begin with.
It may be overly simplistic to assume a particular selling approach these people will take. Sales guys/gals are already subjected to many pressures and face their customers day to day. I think most should be able to do the right thing in the field.
Again as usual, should the incentive does not work out (e.g., not effective). Sony and Gamestop will refine their strategies (as we should expect them to).
I am not assuming that all people will now take a damaging approach. I'm saying the existance of such an incentive increases the chance, by some %, that the salesperson will behave in way that is contrary to whats in the best interests of the customer.
Shifty Geezer
12-Jun-2007, 16:54
So in your opinion, such rules are justified when the benefits vastly outweigh the unwanted aspects right?:???: What rules? Oxygen has the benefit of keeping you alive. The fact it has a negative side-effect doesn't make it bad. It has a huge plus side, as well as the down side. A person offering advice based on what a company is paying them to say rather than a neutral concern for your own requirements has no plus side. Unlike oxygen. So yes, a person imposing their bias on you to try and influence you is bad for you, with no good, which was my point.
Putting it another way, imagine someone else is going to buy you a product with your money. Let's say you're after a car, and you want a people carrier with good economy. Would you rather I research the market and buy you such a motor, or buy the sports coupe on the promise because I pocket 50 bucks myself? Would you rather a doctor look at the available drugs and pick the one that they consider best suited to your needs, or would you prefer the doctor prescribe the drugs from whichever pharmaceuticals company gives them the nicest dinners?
Your point seems to be that benefits can be beneficial, giving the example of pharmaceutical dinners as places where doctors can be educated to the benefits of a medication (and in those cases we assume a totally unbiased view to education with no marketting propaganda on the pharmaceutical company's part). That's far removed from these sales techniques. The offers from Sony aren't making sales-staff aware of the product and it's advantages and key selling points. You can't work in a game store and not be aware of the three consoles. This isn't like the drugs trade with a gazillion competing products. There's three to choose from! These sales motivations are encouraging sales staff to blindly recommend the Sony product without regard for the end consumer so that the sales staff can profit. What would actually be useful for the consumer is Sony investing in 'training', even if just handing out leaflets to stores, so sales staff are better educated to discuss the needs of shoppers and recommend the PS3 when it's appropriate. On the whole though companies don't want that from the sales end of business. They want their product sold whether it's the most sensible choice or not. Drugs companies included.
Thats a decision each person has to make for themselves, we're not a liberty to decide. Therefore, if you are a consumer and feel you are better off with salespeople being commissioned by vendors directly, thats your perogative.
However, i've yet to be convinced that those who rely on these salespeople for impartial information would be, though.
So back to the original problem. It is impossible to get an impartial sales person. Even if this type of thing didn't happen, sales people have to make and give advice based on what they know. Even the best intentioned sales person will eventually end up showing bias when suggesting products. Simply put, with the promotion or without it the negative side effect you are claiming makes these types of incentives bad already exists and will always exist.
There are however proven benefits for this type of program. For Sony, the benefit is possibly swinging the existing bias in their favor increasing sales. For Gamestop, the benefit is motivating employees to work harder and increase their profit. If the benefits exist for the company, and the only possible "negative" side effect is not a result of the promotion - why shouldn't they do the promotion?
expletive
12-Jun-2007, 17:22
So back to the original problem. It is impossible to get an impartial sales person. Even if this type of thing didn't happen, sales people have to make and give advice based on what they know. Even the best intentioned sales person will eventually end up showing bias when suggesting products. Simply put, with the promotion or without it the negative side effect you are claiming makes these types of incentives bad already exists and will always exist.
I never said it was impossible to get a good impartial salesperson. Just because there are existing issues doesnt mean we should stop being concerned about new ones.
We got a puppy a few months back who inevitably wet the rug a few times during training. Should i then let him poop there as well since its already been pissed on? :D Sorry, i'm getting a little loopy with this conversation.
There are however proven benefits for this type of program. For Sony, the benefit is possibly swinging the existing bias in their favor increasing sales.
Why do you, as a consumer, care more about Sony's bottom line than getting impartial sales help and the product right for your needs?
For Gamestop, the benefit is motivating employees to work harder and increase their profit. If the benefits exist for the company, and the only possible "negative" side effect is not a result of the promotion - why shouldn't they do the promotion?
Because it increases the chance that they will lie to you. If we cant agree on that fact, and that it irrefuteably is BAD for consumers, lets just agree to disagree.
Motivating employees by corrupting their ability to be truly useful and unbiased, is not a benefit at all for gamestop.
:???: What rules? Oxygen has the benefit of keeping you alive. The fact it has a negative side-effect doesn't make it bad. It has a huge plus side, as well as the down side. A person offering advice based on what a company is paying them to say rather than a neutral concern for your own requirements has no plus side. Unlike oxygen. So yes, a person imposing their bias on you to try and influence you is bad for you, with no good, which was my point.
The rules that decide if something is good or bad. You claim the negative side effect that Oxygen has doesn't make it bad - because it has "good" effect.
On the other hand, you are claiming that a person selling with bias is bad - even though it has "good" side effects (like more motivated employees, more knowledgable employees, happier sales people, better relations with hardware manufacturers, ect)
So where do you draw the line? The point I am getting at is you and others are making a biased judgement as to where "good" and "bad" lie based on your expectations of what something should be.
Putting it another way, imagine someone else is going to buy you a product with your money. Let's say you're after a car, and you want a people carrier with good economy. Would you rather I research the market and buy you such a motor, or buy the sports coupe on the promise because I pocket 50 bucks myself? Would you rather a doctor look at the available drugs and pick the one that they consider best suited to your needs, or would you prefer the doctor prescribe the drugs from whichever pharmaceuticals company gives them the nicest dinners?
This is the biggest problem with your argument. For it to work, you have to give someone else the responsibility of dealing with YOUR money. No offense, but it isn't their job. It is your job. The same holds true here.
Gamestop is not in business to make informed decisions about what console YOU buy. They are in business to make their stockholders and the company money. Sony is not in business to make informed decisions about what console YOU buy. They are in business to make their stockholders and their company money. So why is it suddenly their responsibility to make the decision on what console YOU buy?
It isn't. It never was and it is just plain silly to assume it was. The reason I gave a medical example is because it has been well debated. The majority consensus seems to be that in medicine there can be no such thing as an "informed" consumer. Even the doctors themselves don't know all of the possible side effects of certain drugs, so how could consumers? Because there is no possible way to have an informed consumer, the government feels the need to protect the uninformed consumer. The decision has nothing to do with "bad" and "good". Those are irrelavent because they are subjective.
So are you claiming now that there is no possible way to be an "informed" video game consumer? That is the only way this argument of yours makes sense. If the consumer can be informed, it is THEIR money to protect. It is not Gamestop or Sony who should bear that burden.
Your point seems to be that benefits can be beneficial, giving the example of pharmaceutical dinners as places where doctors can be educated to the benefits of a medication (and in those cases we assume a totally unbiased view to education with no marketting propaganda on the pharmaceutical company's part). That's far removed from these sales techniques. The offers from Sony aren't making sales-staff aware of the product and it's advantages and key selling points. You can't work in a game store and not be aware of the three consoles. This isn't like the drugs trade with a gazillion competing products. There's three to choose from! These sales motivations are encouraging sales staff to blindly recommend the Sony product without regard for the end consumer so that the sales staff can profit. What would actually be useful for the consumer is Sony investing in 'training', even if just handing out leaflets to stores, so sales staff are better educated to discuss the needs of shoppers and recommend the PS3 when it's appropriate. On the whole though companies don't want that from the sales end of business. They want their product sold whether it's the most sensible choice or not. Drugs companies included.
On the contrary, this is far more similar to drug lunches than you want to believe. I am not assuming unbiased presentations. As a matter of fact, neither does anyone who goes to such presentations. Unlike some here seem to be doing, everyone involved in the drug lunches understands that the drug companies are there to sell their own drugs. They are not benevolant benefactors of the human race. Also, you did know that there were 3 Cox II inhibitors (like Vioxx) right? Not a gazillion - three competing drugs. That was one of the reasons I chose it for the comparison. It is more like this situation than you want to give credit for. Three competing companies. All 3 doing things like drug lunches and customer training to influence their product being sold. All 3 aimed at the same basic market.
In this case, the government stepped in and stopped the sale of one of the drugs based on the argument you are making. They claim that there cannot be an informed consumer hence the side effects could not be tolerated. If you think that was a benevolant decision, you are also wrong. It was a decision campained for by the other 2 competitors.
As you are claiming a practice is "bad" based upon the principle of illiminating a bias that exists already and would continue to exist regardless of what steps you took to remove it, I want you to spell out in detail where you draw the line. Should the government look at stepping in and banning this type of practice for no other reason than to protect the "uninformed" consumer? Is there a standard amount of knowledge you assume a consumer is responsible for themselves? If the consumer is responsible for a certain amount of information themselves, can you show that that information is not enough to prevent the bias you are claiming is bad from affecting them?
Simply put, if you are going to remove the responsibility to deal with MY money from me and give it to someone else, I want to know exactly where the lines are drawn. As for me I wont label this practice good or bad. It is my job as a consumer to decide where I spend my money, not someone elses. Bias exists and will always exist. If I believe someone is too biased to give an informed opinion, I just wont shop there. If enough people do that, their practices will change. I see no reason for the moral indignation people get when a company does something like this.
I never said it was impossible to get a good impartial salesperson. Just because there are existing issues doesn't mean we should stop being concerned about new ones.
You misunderstood.
I am saying it is impossible to get a good impartial sales person. People make decisions based on the knowledge they have. So an impartial sales person would require perfect knowledge of everything. Do you know anyone who has a perfect knowledge of everything?
As it is impossible to get an impartial sales person, the question is only what degree of impartiality do you accept. I personally feel that incentives such as these tend to lead to more "middle of the road" sales people because then their own personal zeal for a particular console isn't as much in the forefront. No offense, but people protect their favorite console with a passion equaled only by religion. That includes the people trying to sell you one.
Motivating employees by corrupting their ability to be truly useful and unbiased, is not a benefit at all.
Once again, your claim and unsupported by any amount of evidence. There is no such thing as an unbiased employee, and never will be until we all become omniscient, omni-benevolent beings. So, as such employees don't exist, I want you to quantify in detail how much bias this type of practice adds. I then want you to quantify in detail where such bias becomes harmful and where it is acceptable. I then want you to prove that this practice crosses that line.
Enough with the pie in the sky "perfect world" argument. We went past that a long time ago. That was the point of the medical example. It is another case where the same basic idea is being employed - the need to protect consumers for themselves. I don't care which example you use to define your criteria, but if you are going to take away my responsibility as a consumer to spend my own money I want to know what that criteria is. Until then, I can't see your point as anything more than a slightly overzealous campaign caused by your own bias.
expletive
12-Jun-2007, 18:19
You misunderstood.
I am saying it is impossible to get a good impartial sales person. People make decisions based on the knowledge they have. So an impartial sales person would require perfect knowledge of everything. Do you know anyone who has a perfect knowledge of everything?
As it is impossible to get an impartial sales person, the question is only what degree of impartiality do you accept. I personally feel that incentives such as these tend to lead to more "middle of the road" sales people because then their own personal zeal for a particular console isn't as much in the forefront. No offense, but people protect their favorite console with a passion equaled only by religion. That includes the people trying to sell you one..
Whether or not impartial salespeople exist is irrelevant. The point is that promotions like this have the possibility make them 'worse' than whatever they are to begin with. Youre using absolutes to try and make your point, no one else is speaking in those terms.
Once again, your claim and unsupported by any amount of evidence. There is no such thing as an unbiased employee, and never will be until we all become omniscient, omni-benevolent beings. So, as such employees don't exist, I want you to quantify in detail how much bias this type of practice adds. I then want you to quantify in detail where such bias becomes harmful and where it is acceptable. I then want you to prove that this practice crosses that line.
No reason to do that. Let me try and simplify it...
(Employee) + (potential added sales bias) + (no benefit the consumer) = something i dont like
Enough with the pie in the sky "perfect world" argument. We went past that a long time ago. That was the point of the medical example. It is another case where the same basic idea is being employed - the need to protect consumers for themselves. I don't care which example you use to define your criteria, but if you are going to take away my responsibility as a consumer to spend my own money I want to know what that criteria is. Until then, I can't see your point as anything more than a slightly overzealous campaign caused by your own bias.
Bias against what? Gamestop? What am i circuit city fanboy? :D
Tell you what, how about you answer my question about why you care more about Sony's bottom line more than impartial sales advice first, then we'll move on to bias.
This is the biggest problem with your argument. For it to work, you have to give someone else the responsibility of dealing with YOUR money. No offense, but it isn't their job. It is your job. The same holds true here.
Gamestop is not in business to make informed decisions about what console YOU buy. They are in business to make their stockholders and the company money. Sony is not in business to make informed decisions about what console YOU buy. They are in business to make their stockholders and their company money. So why is it suddenly their responsibility to make the decision on what console YOU buy?
I guess the statistics show that console are never presented as gifts. Personally I don't have a problem with Sony trying to do this. I have a problem with Gamestop participating. The one area where you are right is that Gamestop's function is to make money for their shareholders. Which is why this program makes no sense for them to allow. The metrics seem to show that the PS3 has a lower attach rate than competing consoles, which will effect Gamestop's potential for future revenue. The fact that a number of PS3's may be purchased to be used primarily as a Blu-Ray player also may also curtail future revenue potential. The only way it could benefit Gamestop is if it could be shown that they would make more money (present and future) by having consumers purchase the PS3 instead of a competing product. As it stands, the score card reads; Consumer -2, Sony +2, Salesperson +2, Gamestop 0 to -1.
In this case, the government stepped in and stopped the sale of one of the drugs based on the argument you are making. They claim that there cannot be an informed consumer hence the side effects could not be tolerated. If you think that was a benevolant decision, you are also wrong. It was a decision campained for by the other 2 competitors.
IIRC Bextra was also pulled in 2005 and Celebrex was given a black box.
I guess the statistics show that console are never presented as gifts.
Same logic applies though. If you were buying a gift for your wife, don't you think it is your responsibility to know what your wife wants? I mean, which do you think your wife would be more insulted at:
You tried really hard and got a gift she didn't like.
You asked someone else what to buy for your wife because you didn't figure you knew her well enough.
Also, a note on why Gamestop might want to do this. They probably purchase consoles in advance on speculation. If they have a large number of consoles taking up storage space that aren't selling, it costs them money. It makes sense for them to try and get rid of those consoles - regardless of how they do it.
IIRC Bextra was also pulled in 2005 and Celebrex was given a black box.
I know there are two that are still allowed some manner of distribution through at least hospitals. I only know the generic names though, I can find out the brand names if you want.
Shifty Geezer
12-Jun-2007, 18:54
On the other hand, you are claiming that a person selling with bias is bad - even though it has "good" side effects (like more motivated employees, more knowledgable employees, happier sales people, better relations with hardware manufacturers, ect)
Gamestop is not in business to make informed decisions about what console YOU buy. They are in business to make their stockholders and the company money.Saying this activity is bad is considering it from the consumers' POV, not GameStop or Sony. You can argue any and every bad thing has a good side. War is a bad thing, right? Well not if your an arms manufacturer. Make lots of money out of war. Thus we can say war's also a good thing from a certain POV, so maybe we shouldn't really try to prevent it. You can say to all those Iraqi's with their limbs blown off that they shouldn't complain about war because it isn't entirely bad and benefits a lot of people...
I don't care about GameStop's profits particularly. Nor Sony's. As a consumer, I want the product that fits me. Of course I don't want companies going out of business, or getting a lack of support for their platform due to lost sales, as that'll be bad for my product. But at the point of sale, what's good for the consumer is accurate and unbiased information. Sure, that's not going to come from a GameStop employee even without such incentives as these, but as Expletive says, you don't want to add to issues if you don't have to. The movement should be towards trying to get all employees and advisors to see all the benefits and cons to each product, and go on to inform end shoppers. Dusting off one's hands to all and sundry cause of bias and prejudice means that'll never happen. Surely the right move is to first complain about new movements (which this isn't of course), and then move towards tackling old prejudices, until we've improved the whole shopping situation and are giving consumers fair advice for them to make educated decisions.
The problem I have with that stand is that while noble, it doesn't actually address the problem. For example, do you think more bias is caused by promotions like this or by sales people actually owning one of the consoles? I would be more than willing to bet that it is the latter. There are many more examples.
Basically, in order to achieve the goal you have set out (totally impartial sales people) you have to remove the person from the equation entirely. I don't think that is good for the consumer. Imagine a world where everything is sold through vending machines. I don't find that at all appealing.
Think of it this way, when you buy a product online do you read customer reviews? If you do, why? You can get a totally unbiased opinion just by reading the product specs. On the other hand, customer reviews will definately have some sort of bias. You don't even know which bias before hand. If you read them with that in mind though you can learn a lot about the product you are buying. Same thing applies here. You cannot remove bias from the sales point of a brick and morter store. That doesn't mean you can't get a fairly good idea of the product you are buying through that bias. Personally, I would much rather companies like Microsoft and Sony fight to "influence" that bias then try to pretend it doesn't exist. At least that way I know where the bias is comming from.
Shifty Geezer
12-Jun-2007, 19:12
Personally, I would much rather companies like Microsoft and Sony fight to "influence" that bias then try to pretend it doesn't exist. At least that way I know where the bias is comming from.A lot of the time you don't though. You don't when a review on a review site is a customer or a corporate lacky. You don't know when a GameStop employee says 'I recommend console X' if it's because they really do prefer that console, or because they've got incentives to. In this one case, we've heard about the corporate influences, so know Sony are doing it. We don't know for sure that they're being countered by MS and Wii. The influence may be very one sided. So rather than pretend it doesn't exist, which I certainly wasn't, I'd rather complain when activities do come to light and try to deter corporations from messing people about. Though in this particular case, it's just one of those things that has little relevance and I'm not fussed, other than the general principle of the thing. But then I've never trusted salesperson for anything anyway!
Same logic applies though. If you were buying a gift for your wife, don't you think it is your responsibility to know what your wife wants? I mean, which do you think your wife would be more insulted at:
You tried really hard and got a gift she didn't like.
You asked someone else what to buy for your wife because you didn't figure you knew her well enough.
If my mother was to go to Gamestop to buy a console for the kids she would most likely come to the conclusion that the PS3 is made up of cells and needs to (s)pee.
Also, a note on why Gamestop might want to do this. They probably purchase consoles in advance on speculation. If they have a large number of consoles taking up storage space that aren't selling, it costs them money. It makes sense for them to try and get rid of those consoles - regardless of how they do it.
It would make more sense to lower the price or send them back.
A lot of the time you don't though. You don't when a review on a review site is a customer or a corporate lacky.
Actually I do. Those are the most useful kind. You know they have a bias. You know exactly where the bias lies. For example, if I know a corporate lacky is giving the review I look at exactly how many good things he can list. You know he is going to go out of his way to list every good thing he can. If he can only list 1 or 2, what does that say about the product?
I also like reading what other customers have to say. Often times through there review you begin to see why they did or did not have problems. Someone who is technically incompitent can say a DVD player works great because it plays DVDs just fine. You get a picture of what they do and don't know very quickly.
This only works if you have a basic knowledge of the product yourself of course. If you know nothing, then you wont have a clue if what you are being told is right or wrong. So in my opinion, a much more noble cause would be to try and get all consumers to have at least a basic knowledge of products before they buy something. Get rid of the impulse buy - that is much more damaging to consumers than any "influence" a company might gain through a promotion.
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.