Read on Twitter
The dynamics between a FLGS and the internet make this even more apparent: the internet has unlimited shelf space, my store does not. I have to buy my inventory selectively based on what sells AND rely on inventory suppliers that are cost-effective, creating a bad feedback loop. https://twitter.com/EricVulgaris/status/1338559786929934337
So I spose my educated hypothesis is: the structure of the way games get to consumers is a significant factor for why the ttrpg market is so entrenched and sticky. Obviously I don't have the data set to test this and regression it out, but that's my thought.
I'm taking a cynical look at FLGSs here. I acknowledge that and why I don't fully believe this but hear me out: FLGS are really, profit-wise, magic the gathering hubs selling a little ttrpg on the side. That ttrpg shelf space could be another table for friday night magic.
It could be a Games workshop shelf or comics. what I'm sayin is that nerd hobby hubs need to pay rent and they pay rent through selling profitable things.
(I'm assuming that the majority of income of sales of games (board/war/roleplaying) still come from the physical dimension.)
(I'm assuming that the majority of income of sales of games (board/war/roleplaying) still come from the physical dimension.)
As long as the way consumers buy goods comes from this nerd marketplace model, our stores must self-select what gets marketed and sold. You can't compete really on price vs the internet (web + warehouse rent < your city's commercial space rent)
To assist in keeping inventory prices lower, retail shops will buy from large distributors that pass savings to their retailers. Middlemen who use their size and volume to get lots of stuff from actual manufacturers. your alliances, etc.
FLGS don't need to compete on selection of ttrpgs because they're not what is paying rent, stores buy what sells (which publisher/distributors tell the store owners what sells). And that's the rub. There's no impetus to change up the formula! You're fighting different hobbies.
Now here's where things are changing and not for the better. Certain distributors can flex their monopolistic (and monopsonistic) powers -- yay middlemen -- by limiting what competitors products you can sell too.
The pie of all sales of hobby games that are going to online vs physical is also shifting... creating even more centralized power to these distributors because that pressure exacerbates how profitable your shelves must be to -- again-- pay the rent -- if you're a FLGS.
I've been so focused thinking this is a social thing for consumers... ex: ppl play D&D cuz they know ppl play D&D (which is true).. but I guess the supply side sells D&D because they know ppl buy D&D!
The internet, kickstarter, have broken open the playing field for producing games, but the power of distribution and marketing still hasn't. Logistics wins again.
Now I'm also a historical materialist so of course I'm like THE SUPERSTRUCTURE MUST CHANGE but also... the superstructure of how games are volumized, warehoused, packaged, and played is a result of present logistics.
So one idea: continuing to push games digitally and playing games digitally circumvents the FLGS/Distributor death spiral but it will continue to push FLGS to be extremely lean.
Another broader idea (cuz this also is true for moving online) is decommodification of community spaces.
