Product delays explained!

[RGM81]

You forgot Option D - pay the players up front.

This is the practice used by In The Game, and check it out: no redemptions.

Do they occasionally receive cards late that can't be used in a particular product? Unfortunately, yes. Dr. Price has had to hold on to some very nice cards because they didn't get returned on time. But the business model he deploys for his company's trading cards is very simple: if the cards/stickers don't make it on time, the card is pulled from the checklist. No redemptions. Very few product delays.

When it comes to the licensed manufacturers, yours truly has argued on a number of occasions for the following things:
1. Reducing the number of products
2. Lessening the over-reliance on a (relatively) small number of players to be in every product and often have multiple autographed cards in each product.
3. If redemptions are going to be utilized, be up front and transparent with collectors. When the checklist is finally posted (often up to 2 weeks after the product has hit the market) denote which cards are going to be redemptions.

UD and Panini are badly hurting the hobby with all of the delays and redemptions - there is a formula to remedy this problem, but neither seems inclined to make the hard decisions that are necessary to get things back on track.

[mortuus]

I agree - kick thoose players who are so lazy to sign or dont return the cards at all, that cant be fun to sit forever waiting for redemptions.. they suck as it was said.

[centrehice]

Everybody continues to blame the players.

The players don't own the card companies. UD and Panini are not one bit proactive, otherwise as I've said again and again they would actually care, give you proper replacements in proper response time.

Taking more than 2 years to replace a redemption, replacing it with a sub-standard card, never keeping the consumer informed,........then blaming the players is just a bad business practice.

[wreckless]

i'd rather wait and wait for a UD redemption then not have my player sign at all.. ie luongo.

[michaelpatko]

I dunno, sounds like ITG has it covered, maybe UD and Panini could learn something.

[centrehice]

I dunno, sounds like ITG has it covered, maybe UD and Panini could learn something.

I believe that Dr. Price is proactive when it comes to signings. He goes to the players to get the cards signed, and does not send cards in the mail.

Sending cards in the mail and hoping that players will sign, then actually have to return the cards, ....... is a redundant business practice.

[ravens_creed]

I'm sure I'm not the only one wondering who the so-called "problematic" players are... does anyone have any inside scoop on who is tough to get to follow through on their signing duties? Time to name some names. I know there are players who are notorious for this, so who are they? The companies obviously won't name them, but we can here!

[TPotts]

You forgot Option D - pay the players up front.

This is the practice used by In The Game, and check it out: no redemptions.

Do they occasionally receive cards late that can't be used in a particular product? Unfortunately, yes. Dr. Price has had to hold on to some very nice cards because they didn't get returned on time. But the business model he deploys for his company's trading cards is very simple: if the cards/stickers don't make it on time, the card is pulled from the checklist. No redemptions. Very few product delays.

When it comes to the licensed manufacturers, yours truly has argued on a number of occasions for the following things:
1. Reducing the number of products
2. Lessening the over-reliance on a (relatively) small number of players to be in every product and often have multiple autographed cards in each product.
3. If redemptions are going to be utilized, be up front and transparent with collectors. When the checklist is finally posted (often up to 2 weeks after the product has hit the market) denote which cards are going to be redemptions.

UD and Panini are badly hurting the hobby with all of the delays and redemptions - there is a formula to remedy this problem, but neither seems inclined to make the hard decisions that are necessary to get things back on track.

@RGM81, read that link and you hit the nail on the head, nice piece! Way to many products nowadays... Definitely like the idea of cutting them down, but at the same time almost all collectors are always after the newest product... If you cut it down, you'd maybe see some down times from one to the next?

(Just playing devils-advocate, I've stopped buying boxes)

[RGM81]

@RGM81, read that link and you hit the nail on the head, nice piece! Way to many products nowadays... Definitely like the idea of cutting them down, but at the same time almost all collectors are always after the newest product... If you cut it down, you'd maybe see some down times from one to the next?

(Just playing devils-advocate, I've stopped buying boxes)

Many thanks. One of my favourite articles I've written. :)

It's definitely a double-edged sword: fewer products = less revenue. It would possibly also necessitate letting go of some people in the product development areas. The end result--superior products without the watered-down interest and redundancy--may or may not actually be worth it from a financial perspective to the manufacturers or even the players.

[Fred Bear]

Dr. Price does a great job - for a small company. That's not a knock against him or ITG, but it is much, much different running a company who puts out 3 annual sets with 2-3 'bonus' projects each year than running an Upper Deck or Panini with 10+ releases each season. Don't get me wrong, I'm not one to give UD or Panini a bye just because they are bigger - that was their business choice. I'm just saying they will often need to be managed differently.

From reading everyone's comments, it seems that we, as collectors, miss the big picture from the manufacturer's point of view. They started their businesses in order to make money. Businesses adapt if they see declines in sales numbers or opportunities to grow. Look at where they start each season...

Their annual license fee from the NHL & NHLPA costs $X
They can produce a maximum of ~12 products each year

It's simply good business to spread the license fee over as many products as possible to 'minimize' the impact on any individual product. If the NHL/NHLPA reduced the maximum number of products allowed as part of the license, who makes up the $$$ difference? Do the players/league take a pay cut and reduce $X? Do the manufacturers take a pay cut and increase the per product cost of the license? Or do the end customers, us, make it up by having to pay higher prices for everything?

Again, I'm not judging right or wrong, I'm pointing out that there's an economic explanation for what they are doing.

I do agree that they need to be more proactive and here's my suggestion... Hire a certified Project Manager. Bring in someone who not only knows how to make a timeline, but also how to 'crash' it and 'pull in' dates. Its great to have 'hockey' people or 'hobby insiders' working on design, content, and blogs... Hire business people to get things done in production. The blog about BSing with so-and-so while he was signing the 1000 cards you put redemptions in three products ago is great, but I would give you more credit for doing it three products ago! It would be a boring story, too...

We sat and watched so-and-so sign the three boxes of cards for about two-and-a-half hours. He joked about needing a drink. The PM told me to go get him a drink so he could keep signing and I did. It was this way all day as we managed to track down three other players before the team had to go the rink for tonight's game... On the drive back to the office, the PM commented that next time we'd get more done if I didn't bother the player's so much...

The professional project manager will also be used to having his salary/job tied to his performance. As it stands right now, though, there is no accountability for any given product. I had a heated discussion with a distributor once...

Me:'Well, cancel my 2 cases of that since it won't be out until next month.'
Him:'You need to honor your pre-orders.'
Me:'You need to supply the products when you say you will.'
Him:'It's out of my hands.'
Me:'How do I show that I'm upset and not going to take this anymore?'
Him:'Don't order the next product.'
Me:'What's the next product?'
Him:'The Cup.'

Until there is accountability for putting out a product late or with tons of redemptions, nothing will change. I pre-order from a shop. The shop pre-orders based on this through the distributor (at a higher level than what I order). The distributor pre-orders based on this through the manufacturer (at a higher level than what the shop orders). The manufacturer gets paid and then produces the product, shipping... whenever.

I wait because the shop waits... The shop waits because the distributor waits... The distributor waits because the manufacturer has 'delayed'... The manufacturer delays because he's already been paid!

Until the distributors and direct shops align and agree to NOT pay until product is delivered, nothing will change. You can guarantee that the manufacturers will go NUTS about that because this will force them to be accountable.