Sony Incentives to Gamestop Employees...

[Xalion]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Xalion]

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]

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? 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.

 

[Xalion]

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.

 

[Xalion]

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]

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?

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.

 

[nelg]

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.

 

[Xalion]

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]

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.

 

[Xalion]

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]

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!

 

[nelg]

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.

 

[Xalion]

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.