L
Simple: They don't advertise D&D because they don't need to. :P
And they aren't stocked in toy stores nor in either of the B&N & Borders book stores near me.
When I see distribution being neglected I know management doesn't care about the product line as it is too small compared to other sources of revenue.
And they aren't stocked in toy stores nor in either of the B&N & Borders book stores near me.
When I see distribution being neglected I know management doesn't care about the product line as it is too small compared to other sources of revenue.
Both B&N and Borders near me have full stocks, and regularly sell out of items. They stock all in-print products for D&D including the Dungeon Tiles. So, that is your local management's decision. Incidentally, it is policy at a lot of the chain stores that you can request items from other stores be shipped to your store. I've done it before. Because they have their own distribution network, you look to see, in their computers, if Borders AS A WHOLE has ___ in stock. If they do, they'll ship it from one of their other locations overstocked to the stores that request stock.
Both B&N and Borders near me have full stocks, and regularly sell out of items.
Not near me. They used to stock 3.5 books but have never had or stocked 4.0
Not near me. They used to stock 3.5 books but have never had or stocked 4.0
That is 100% the personal decision of the manager. Moreover, with the numbers WotC is raking in with 4E in venues like Amazon, and brick and mortars, this is likely both a) a personal vendetta against 4E by the person placing those orders, and b) incredibly foolish and losing those stores sales revenue, being rather irresponsible. Business should not be personal. :/
Seriously, every big box bookstore here has them, and sells a lot of them, and this is a small city/big town, not remotely close to a medium sized or big city. Yet, Books-a-Million, Waldenbooks, Barnes & Noble, Borders. All of 'em. Without exception.
If you are always looking for them, and they never have them, you should get yourself and your fellow gamers to complain about the lack of items, and request them to be stocked. Then, tell the managers specifically that you guess you just HAVE to give your money to the competition, but you'd rather give it to them. *shrug* Heck, explicitly inquire as to WHY they wouldn't stock an item that is consistently on the Amazon top 100 list, at least a copy or two of each book, just to see if the sales are there (I would wager very good money they are).
That is really quite foolish on their part.
I just find it odd that Hasbro seems to do little to promote the D&D intellectual property outside of the game materials themselves, and then only to the gaming market.
I don't see the D&D name and characters on bath towels, t-shirts, legos, action figures, stickers, halloween costumes, etc. Compare this to say Star Wars or Hanna Montana or the Disney princesses. Granted, D&D the game isn't something that can be marketed well to children under 10-12 but you'd think they might do more to "get the kids ready" to make the jump to the RPG and minis when they get old enough. Sure they did a D&D version of Clue a few years back but aside from things like that they haven't tried to do much it seems.
They seem to be leaving it the "game that the geeks play".
Is some of this fear at the corporate level still the result of the 80s backlash by extremist groups who thought it was Satanic and all that nonsense?
L
That is 100% the personal decision of the manager.
Yes, the managers confirmed that. They both said that they stock (after release) books based on demand. Both said that demand for 3.5 books was much higher than 4.0 and the after release demand for 4.0 was not enough to justify in store stocking.
Yes, the managers confirmed that. They both said that they stock (after release) books based on demand. Both said that demand for 3.5 books was much higher than 4.0 and the after release demand for 4.0 was not enough to justify in store stocking.
You said they never stocked them. Therefore, they cannot possibly know what sales will be like, or what sales are missing. Every person that asks for a product generally counts as a potential 10 people that did not ask. Those managers made a personal choice that is likely costing the company money. *shrug* A foolish mistake, in my opinion, based on what sounds like a personal grudge, personal bias.
You said they never stocked them.
They took stock initially that all chains got. They didn't restock and only take one off orders.
They took stock initially that all chains got. They didn't restock and only take one off orders.
If your initial impression was that they never stocked them (based on your first post in this thread), and managers confirmed that they did stock the initial order (thus your impression that they, "have never had or stocked 4.0")...then they sold out of the initial order before you even saw it in stock.
They should be stocking at least one or two or each core book (keep in mind the ones around here keep five to ten of each core book stocked at all times), and a few of each new product as it comes out. If the turnover on a given product is swift, or even merely sufficient, you immediately reorder it. You only cease to order a product when it sits on the shelves too long.Seriously, this sounds personal, not like a sound business decision. Like the manager himself/herself is trying to send a personal message to WotC...or something. Personal grudges + business = bad business.
They should be stocking at least one or two or each core book (keep in mind the ones around here keep five to ten of each core book stocked at all times),
They stock based on ongoing demend.
Seriously, this sounds personal, not like a sound business decision. Like the manager himself/herself is trying to send a personal message to WotC...or something. Personal grudges + business = bad business.
No, the managers are judged based on sales. They don't care what is bought as long as people buy.
They stock based on ongoing demand.
Ongoing demand is judged by how fast it sells, not by customers actually ASKING for it. If you aren't stocking it, how do you know if you are meeting ongoing demand? If you aren't stocking new product whose line consistently hits the top of their genre in the industry periodicals, you aren't even TRYING to supply the demand.
No, the managers are judged based on sales. They don't care what is bought as long as people buy.
If they sold out of stock before you even saw any of that stock, that constitutes meeting a demand. Keep in mind, the initial stock levels for 4E in big box stores was rather significant. Here, in a largish town/very small city, it was ~20 copies of each book, in each store, even with four of those stores (one Borders, one Books-a-Million, one Waldenbooks and one Barnes & Noble) all in a one-mile radius, with another Books-a-Million ~five miles away, and another Barnes & Noble ~ five miles in the opposite direction. All sold out within the first week to two weeks, and all have restocked and in turn stocked and sold out of all of the new releases. Not restocking after an initial stock that has sold out within the first couple of weeks is not basing a decision on sales.
Not all managers base ALL of their decisions strictly on sales, which is what I am trying to point out. Ever known a manager that refused to stock a specific book because of their religious inclination (in this case, stocking atheist books such as "The God Delusion" and other Dawkins books)? I have. That is lost sales based on a personal decision, not based on sales performance. It happens ALL THE TIME. Sometimes, they DO let personal feelings get in the way of sales. Not ordering new product that consistently hits the top sales lists in the industry periodicals, because customers have not physically asked for it, is silly. You order the product in small amounts if concerned. If it sells, you reorder, if it does not, you do not. If you never saw the stock on the shelves, it sold out. Thus, demand was being met. Thus, the manager isn't telling the whole story.
Ever known a manager that refused to stock a specific book because of their religious inclination (in this case, stocking atheist books such as "The God Delusion" and other Dawkins books)? I have.
They stock based on sales & demand. If a manager would stock a D&D book that sells then he'll stock one that sells.
Pretty simple.
The local toy store chains (Toys R Us, etc.) don't stock it either even though they used to stock 3.5.
Do you think it is a giant conspiracy?
Yes. D&D might make up 1% of Hasbro sales. MIGHT. I would like to see more attention placed on it, but in all honesty their dollars are better spent on other lines.
Yes. D&D might make up 1% of Hasbro sales. MIGHT.
Which is why you will continue to see declining quality & constantly slipping release dates of products belonging to this line.
They stock based on sales & demand. If a manager would stock a D&D book that sells then he'll stock one that sells.
Pretty simple.
It obviously isn't that simple. If you never even saw the books on the shelves, they SOLD OUT. That means that sales & demand were there. Those books didn't just disappear without selling. If they did, there is a whole different problem there, and a whole different aspect of the job is being neglected (preventing theft). So, either the manager is not telling us something, or you are not telling us something. A piece of the puzzle is missing, do you understand?
The local toy store chains (Toys R Us, etc.) don't stock it either even though they used to stock 3.5.
Do you think it is a giant conspiracy?
If they aren't even initially stocking items that consistently hit the trade periodicals top lists, and consistently hit the Amazon top 100 list, and completely sold out of their initial run before you even saw them, then something isn't right, yes. As for Toys R Us? I've never been in a Toys R Us that stocks D&D, not one in the state. *shrug* On the other hand, all of the brick and mortar gaming stores stock and sell out of it. All of the book stores I've been in stock and sell out of it.
So, either you've got one or two managers that were personally upset by the change from 3.5 to 4E, or there is too much competition with your local gaming stores. If it's the latter, than yes, that is a legitimate reason not to stock the product. However, the information you've given thus far doesn't add up. Something is missing. If you never saw the product on the shelves at all, once more, it SOLD OUT before you could see or purchase it. That means a swift turnover, especially in a book store, where entire product lines do just that, yet are restocked.
A gaming book selling with that kind of turnover is a better use of square footage than the bulk of the New Age section in the bookstores I've been in, and the sales I've seen personally, or sales reports I've looked at. The book business is all about efficient use of space. In fact, the whole retail industry is all about efficient use of space. If an initial order only takes a week or two to sell out, or even a month if the quantity was sufficient as it was here with 4E initial orders, than yes, something is amiss. So, what information are we missing?
ETA: Note, I am not accusing you of anything, so please don't take it as such. The information provided simply doesn't add up, so I'm curious as to what piece of the puzzle is missing here.
Back to the original question and not the pointless mini edition war...
It has nothing to do with edition wars.
If he was talking about, as I pointed out, "The God Delusion" likewise selling out of the initial order with swift turnover, yet no restock, and no new Dawkins books being ordered, I'd likewise be suspicious. If he was talking about Harry Potter undergoing the same phenomenon, I'd be equally suspicious. It simply doesn't add up, from a business perspective. It does, however, add up from a perspective of letting personal feelings get in the way of a business decision. I couldn't care any less about the 3.5 vs 4E aspect of it if I tried. :DSo, either you've got one or two managers that were personally upset by the change from 3.5 to 4E, or there is too much competition with your local gaming stores.
Nope. They USED to stock 3.5, ALL of them I listed. Now they don't stock 4.0.
The nearest "local gaming shop" that carries is over 7 miles away.
Those are the facts. You may not like them but, that's what has happened over the last 6 months...
Nope. They USED to stock 3.5, ALL of them I listed. Now they don't stock 4.0.
The nearest "local gaming shop" that carries is over 7 miles away.
Those are the facts. You may not like them but, that's what has happened over the last 6 months...
What is the piece of the puzzle missing? You said that the initial stock sold out, before you ever saw it on the shelves. They haven't even TRIED to stock new releases, which top out the trade periodicals for their genre for sales. Top of the list for RPG sales, consistently. Every month. In the book industry trade periodicals. I've looked at those periodicals for years. Top. Of. The. List. To not even TRY to stock them??? So, yes, it makes zero sense. I don't like or hate the facts, the facts in this case simply do not add up.
What is the piece of the puzzle missing? You said that the initial stock sold out, before you ever saw it on the shelves.
I'll explain for those who have never dealt with book distributors. If there isn't consistent demand (sales) they stop stocking. Initial sales are just that, initial.
If they don't move enough after that they get sent back to warehouse and they don't reorder.
There is something going on as the toy chains stopped carrying when 4.0 was introduced. They had sold out of 3.5 way before 4.0 was released and never put placed 4.0 on the shelves.
I do know that retail is hurting badly this year and retailers are stocking whatever sells. (self preservation).
One thing you learn in college Econ is that the market is ALWAYS right and that businesses that don't know that go bye, bye...
I cannot really say that didn't follow the demand in this instance, but it looks suspicious. Merely pointing back to the law of supply and demand will not show that they followed the demand, so it cannot be proved either way without more data.
but it looks suspicious.
Yes, all the retailers in my area who used to carry 3.x but don't carry 4.0 are in on a conspiracy. ;)
I'll go with market forces over an evil plot by disparate retailers.
Yes, all the retailers in my area who used to carry 3.x but don't carry 4.0 are in on a conspiracy. ;)
I'll go with market forces over an evil plot by disparate retailers.
Yet you said,
There is something going on as the toy chains stopped carrying when 4.0 was introduced. They had sold out of 3.5 way before 4.0 was released and never put placed 4.0 on the shelves.
:P
Yet you said,There is something going on as the toy chains stopped carrying when 4.0 was introduced. They had sold out of 3.5 way before 4.0 was released and never put placed 4.0 on the shelves.
:P
Exactly. That is very suspicious. Sorry, but that isn't allowing market forces to have a say whatsoever. That is preemptively cutting off a potential stream of revenue before the market has spoken. That is NOT a sound business decision, and has nothing to do with market forces.
Again...how are market forces speaking if they aren't stocking the line AT ALL, yet the product line is a consistent bestseller for the genre in the industry-specific sales periodicals (not magazines that customers have, but the periodicals that list the top 100 books from each genre, hardback and softback, top 100 magazines, top 100 games, top 100 DVDs, etc)?
For all your local bookstore managers know, they are losing out on a significant number of sales. How would they know, they aren't even requesting these items be shipped via their internal distribution network? Their system allows for enormous flexibility and advantage over other retailers. Brick and mortar game stores WISH they could have two copies of each book shipped to them, and then SEND THEM BACK if they don't sell. I mean, I can go into most big box bookstores and ask that book X, which is in their computer, be shipped from a store 12 states over that is even just slightly overstocked, and they'll do it in a heartbeat. Yet, they won't stock the top selling RPG on the market?
Again, it's suspicious. Sorry, it just is. It could be the economy, sure, or it could be self-fulfilling prophecy where items aren't stocked for FEAR that they won't sell (even if the data doesn't correlate with the market as a whole), or it could be something else entirely.
Nevertheless, something is amiss, and it sure doesn't look like market forces.
Exactly. That is very suspicious. Sorry, but that isn't allowing market forces to have a say whatsoever.
For what ever business reason, they don't carry 4.0 but did carry 3.x.
That's a fact. It is multiple retailers in my area. Like I said, I don't think it is a plot. Since they all did it there is some business reason behind it.
For what ever business reason, they don't carry 4.0 but did carry 3.x.
That's a fact. It is multiple retailers in my area. Like I said, I don't think it is a plot. Since they all did it there is some business reason behind it.
The only possible business reason is that there is little to no market in your locality to warrant it. That is it. Which means, as unlikely as it seems, that the gaming store 7 miles away is indeed grabbing the lion's share of the market where you live. It is still extremely odd that nary a one uses their very sizable resources to simply stock new releases and see how they sell. It would be like not selling the top C++ programming book on the market 10 years running because last years didn't sell overly well, so they don't want to risk it, or not selling the best-selling home gardening book for similar reasons. It's just plain odd. If your local gaming store doesn't carry and sell it consistently, then your area is quite abnormal (in terms of market trending, heh; I have no idea how abnormal it might be otherwise :D :P).
The only possible business reason is that there is little to no market in your locality to warrant it. That is it.
Like I said, the market is always right. There was enough business for them to carry 3.5, not enough for 4.0.
Like I said, the market is always right. There was enough business for them to carry 3.5, not enough for 4.0.
But they only stocked it once and it sold out, so wouldn't that mean the market's response was "do want"?
Granted, I took AP psychology largely to get out of economics, but it seems to me that If I owned a business, and something sold out, It'd be worth restocking. Hell, look at the difficulty people had getting a Wii. It would seem kind of stupid to sell one's initial stock, and then claim that nobody purchased any of the 0 Wiis available after that, therefore it would be a bad proposition to restock them.
But they only stocked it once and it sold out, so wouldn't that mean the market's response was "do want"?
Granted, I took AP psychology largely to get out of economics, but it seems to me that If I owned a business, and something sold out, It'd be worth restocking. Hell, look at the difficulty people had getting a Wii. It would seem kind of stupid to sell one's initial stock, and then claim that nobody purchased any of the 0 Wiis available after that, therefore it would be a bad proposition to restock them.
Since ALL the major retailers in the area did the same, then it's safe to say there wasn't enough continued demand. They can return stuff that stops moving. I didn't get around to all the retailers until recently. But, I have sold through the channel and this is the phenomena.
But they only stocked it once and it sold out, so wouldn't that mean the market's response was "do want"?
Granted, I took AP psychology largely to get out of economics, but it seems to me that If I owned a business, and something sold out, It'd be worth restocking. Hell, look at the difficulty people had getting a Wii. It would seem kind of stupid to sell one's initial stock, and then claim that nobody purchased any of the 0 Wiis available after that, therefore it would be a bad proposition to restock them.
That's the part that doesn't add up. They sold out of their initial stock completely. How long after release did you look, Kursk? In other words, what it the MOST amount of time it could have taken for the initial run to sell out, or get sent back through distribution? If it was a week or less, then it's ludicrous for the managers to assert what they're asserting. How large was their initial order, for that matter?
I've certainly seen numerous products in big box bookstores sit for literally 6+ months before going into the discount bin, and still seen newer stock in the same product line come through in the interim. This is why it simply doesn't add up, from a purely business perspective. Again, I'd be equally puzzled if this were ANY other product line, any genre, any company, any placement on the top-sellers lists in the periodicals for the respective industry, or not on those industry lists at all.
For what ever business reason, they don't carry 4.0 but did carry 3.x.
That's a fact. It is multiple retailers in my area. Like I said, I don't think it is a plot. Since they all did it there is some business reason behind it.
It could have been fear to commit to the new product caused the locals not to stock many books. That would led to a lower number sold locally (not just by store) and cause it look like it wouldn't sell well, so they refused to stock more.
As you said they sold out of the original stock. That brings up the questions of "How much they stocked?" and "How fast they sold out?"
Once these are answered we might get to the bottom of what is happening here. Until then you cannot say that they had a business reason as correlation does not imply causation.
Since ALL the major retailers in the area did the same, then it's safe to say there wasn't enough continued demand. They can return stuff that stops moving. I didn't get around to all the retailers until recently. But, I have sold through the channel and this is the phenomena.
Emphasis mine.
Can they? Or are they in a situation where they can only return it to their own internal distribution network? If their only option is to ship the unsold 3.5 material back to the corporation's wharehouses, they may have opted out of purchasing newer materials until they unload the older material.
I noticed that just when the local Barnes & Noble got the 4.0 material, their 3.5 stock vanished and the second-hand bookstore suddenly got a flood of near-mint 3.5 books. Is it possible that the distribution network in your area experienced some sort of hiccup that caused them to shy away from the 4.0 purchase?
Emphasis mine.
Can they? Or are they in a situation where they can only return it to their own internal distribution network?
Depending on the contract they can return all the way to the publisher.
Depending on the contract they can return all the way to the publisher.
And does their contract allow that?
And does their contract allow that?
Ask the publisher.
I can say that unless they gave the chains accurate data about new version release (remember, they lied to their customers) that breaks every standard contract I've seen of this type. That means auto return and the publisher eating all returns 100%.
Ask the publisher.
That may be part of the reason your local shops aren't carrying 4.0. The stores here are fully-stocked and have been for some time. Not that your local retailers will tell you, but that could be part of the difficulty you're having.
That may be part of the reason your local shops aren't carrying 4.0. The stores here are fully-stocked and have been for some time. Not that your local retailers will tell you, but that could be part of the difficulty you're having.
Sorry, please clarify what you think the situation is.
Sorry, please clarify what you think the situation is.
If the publisher refused to take the unsold material from the out-of-print editions, your local stores may have chosen not to carry the most recent edition. Although that's just one of many possibilities.
If the publisher refused to take the unsold material from the out-of-print editions, your local stores may have chosen not to carry the most recent edition.
The contracts are chain wide. The publisher couldn't refuse without wiping out its ability to sell to the book chain nationwide.
Nope. They USED to stock 3.5, ALL of them I listed. Now they don't stock 4.0.
The nearest "local gaming shop" that carries is over 7 miles away.
Those are the facts. You may not like them but, that's what has happened over the last 6 months...
They are facts but they do not support a conclusion. You could just as easily come to the conclusion that B&N isn't stocking them because amazon is eating their lunch and undercutting them on price. Maybe consumers don't like paying an extra 20% when they don't have to.
They are facts but they do not support a conclusion.
Well, I don't know any other reason for not stocking other than market forces.
That's more logical than proposed conspiracies, goblins, etc.
How about you?
Well, I don't know any other reason for not stocking other than market forces.
That's more logical than proposed conspiracies, goblins, etc.
How about you?
Oh I didn't disagree with that. I just disagree with the implied premise in the thread that its because 4e doesn't sell--as data to that effect hasn't been presented. In fact 4e might be doing very well in online sales but you don't have access to that information and therefore cannot draw the conclusion you are making.
Online sales are more likely the cause of things not being restocked than an actual drop in sales of the product itself. If the local retailer can not or will not compete on price with something like amazon, then they will not get my business. Net result: they don't stock any more 4e because it doesn't "sell well" in their eyes. That conclusion completely ignores the fact that I bought all of my books online--have done so for over about two years now--and don't plan to stop buying online any time soon.
WotC still made a sale from me--B&N did not.
Let's take one other small sample: the people I game with. How many of them bought from a local retailer? One. And he works for the store and gets a big discount. The other 8 or so people I can count all buy from places like amazon because it is cheaper. Consumers are not dumb. They will flock to the lowest prices.
Oh I didn't disagree with that. I just disagree with the implied premise in the thread that its because 4e doesn't sell--as data to that effect hasn't been presented.
The FACT that it isn't being stocked points to lackluster sales in those venues. Period.
I never said overall sales were ANYTHING.
The FACT that it isn't being stocked points to lackluster sales in those venues. Period.
Correlation does not imply causation.
The possibility that online competition negating profit is quit possible as well.
Also, you still haven't said how quickly they sold out.
That would be an important piece of info and could possibly strengthen your argument.
7/10. Subtle, yet effective.
Agreed. Got me. *sigh*
The FACT that it isn't being stocked points to lackluster sales in those venues. Period.
I never said overall sales were ANYTHING.
You're not fully reading what I wrote. I said you implied it. Here is where you implied it:
And they aren't stocked in toy stores nor in either of the B&N & Borders book stores near me.
When I see distribution being neglected I know management doesn't care about the product line as it is too small compared to other sources of revenue.
Otherwise I agree 100%, the particular stores (not entire chains, but the specific stores) you are referencing I have no doubt are not stocking in your area because they can not make money off of the product, whether that be from dis-interest, competition, or for other reasons entirely.
Correlation does not imply causation.
The possibility that online competition negating profit is quit possible as well.
Very possible. And a market force as I have been saying all along.
Very possible. And a market force as I have been saying all along.
You said low sales, not low profits. There is quite a differnce.
You said low sales, not low profits. There is quite a differnce.
Low sales of those books. Profit is pretty constant based on the contracts. You have dealt with book distribution contracts, right?
Low sales of those books.
I put forth that online competition might have cut the profits down low enough not to be worth it.
You seemed to agree.
Now it seems that you are holding a different, but related position. Low sales may cause low profit, but it need not be the only cause.
Profit is pretty constant based on the contracts. You have dealt with book distribution contracts, right?
No I haven't.
Also note you still haven't answered the question of how quickly they sold out.
That information is key to your argument of low sales, yet you still have not supplied it.
The FACT that it isn't being stocked points to lackluster sales in those venues. Period.
I never said overall sales were ANYTHING.
So it's not being stocked because it's not being purchased because it's not being stocked?
So it's not being stocked because it's not being purchased because it's not being stocked?
Straw man. He's saying that it didn't sell well and pointing to not restocking as the proof.
Straw man. He's saying that it didn't sell well and pointing to not restocking as the proof.
But if there's no stock, how do you guage sales?
Hell, I traded my only copy of Tarmogoyf, and since then, hardly anybody has wanted to trade with me to get one. Therefore, there's little to no demand for it?
But if there's no stock, how do you guage sales?
Huh, there where sales. They had a initial stock that sold out.
I still don't know why they wouldn't restock after that.
I would however agree, that not caring makes it hard to gauge demand.
Huh, there where sales. They had a initial stock that sold out.
I still don't know why they wouldn't restock after that.
I would however agree, that not caring makes it hard to gauge demand.
Regardless, no matter how you slice it, not stocking a consistent bestseller for a given genre when you stock that genre is an unsound business decision. Period. You absolutely CANNOT supply demand if you aren't providing supply at all. Considering the stock levels for and particular distribution setup and scheme used by these exact big box stores on the national level, not tacking that product onto your normal invoice, gauging sales, then passing it back into the distribution system is egregious at best. At best. In other words, this really doesn't pass the smell test.
In other words, this really doesn't pass the smell test.
I agree something is off.
Simple: They don't advertise D&D because they don't need to. :P
Perhaps the printer couldn't print the color for 'awesome' ?
Regardless, no matter how you slice it, not stocking a consistent bestseller for a given genre when you stock that genre is an unsound business decision. Period. You absolutely CANNOT supply demand if you aren't providing supply at all. Considering the stock levels for and particular distribution setup and scheme used by these exact big box stores on the national level, not tacking that product onto your normal invoice, gauging sales, then passing it back into the distribution system is egregious at best. At best. In other words, this really doesn't pass the smell test.
If a sales rep for Hasbro comes in there three weeks in a row and notices absolutely no stock or signage on the shelves, it could also be grounds for a lawsuit that could loose the manager their job. Judging by other big-box book stores, WotC has contracts that require a certain amount of brand placement within the retailers, be it in a turn-style or signs, and if that's not there they are almost certainly in violation of corporate contracts. As for no demand, if there is never any product readily available then they're missing the impulse and browse base shoppers, which are the largest chunk of the retail market. Again, they are liable to the publisher for this. Big-box retail is weird in how it works, but the bottom line is they're contractually obligated to have the product available, even if only in token amounts.
If a sales rep for Hasbro comes in there three weeks in a row and notices absolutely no stock or signage on the shelves, it could also be grounds for a lawsuit that could loose the manager their job. Judging by other big-box book stores, WotC has contracts that require a certain amount of brand placement within the retailers, be it in a turn-style or signs, and if that's not there they are almost certainly in violation of corporate contracts. As for no demand, if there is never any product readily available then they're missing the impulse and browse base shoppers, which are the largest chunk of the retail market. Again, they are liable to the publisher for this. Big-box retail is weird in how it works, but the bottom line is they're contractually obligated to have the product available, even if only in token amounts.
This is also very true. I forgot about this aspect of the big boxes, but it is very real indeed, and the reps are constantly out and about doing just this. Yeah. This really doesn't pass the smell test at all. I had already begun to, and now quite doubt the veracity of these claims at all.
Transformer movie?
Playskool?
Trivial Pursuit?
Heck yeah.
D&D?
"D&D who?"
*****
Stupid jokes about 4e aside, D&D has a signifigantly older target demographic and fanbase than any other Hasbro product.