pacarat wrote: ↑
Sun May 27, 2018 8:09 pm
The more they can sell of any piece, the more cost effective it is to make that mold. Why would anyone want to limit sales of _any_ piece by limiting its availability to one (or even a few) encounter(s), SG, or as a single capstone?
This whole convo is kinda moot bc DF has made it clear that they won't be limiting the cool bling pieces to mega sets this time around. So -- yay, problem solved!
But (and I promise, I'm not trying to be obnoxious, I genuinely want to know) -- why aren't you persuaded by the reasoning that having exclusives drives up interest and sales?
You know the spiel -- SGs in general motivate people to keep pledging. If you can get enough people to budge from $200 to maybe $300, enough from $300 to ("aw, screw it!") $500, and enough people from $1800 to $2500 and so on, all because the elusive SG is soooo .... close.... then it's worth it.
Similarly, if the only way to get a capstone piece is to buy the $500 or $1000 set it comes with, then some people are going to say "well, I was in for so much already, and I really want that piece." If you can get it cheaper and easier another way, those large mega sets don't have the same appeal, and sell fewer units.
Really, the only way to know if this is a good way to do things or not is to crunch a lot of data, and to have a control group. Here's how many of the mega sets sold when the exclusive capstone was part of the deal, and here's how many sold without that. Here's how big the KS went with the limited SG goals, and here's how big it went when SGs were just more common pieces.
You may be right, making pieces more widely available could work out. The math could be that if 2000 customers buy a cheaper bling set you do far better than if only 200 buy your mega set with the exclusive capstone. But I don't know how anyone could really tell that without the data. Maybe you have the data, I don't know. I know a lot of dedicated forum trogs watch the KSs and track their performance down to the hour, so there are definitely some business majors and statistics folks up in here who can get very precise answers.
I admit I'm sympathetic because this stuff works on me. Before the KSs began, DF regularly offered incentives if you pre-ordered 3 of a new set. Three river sets gets you a boat, three lake sets gets you some lizardmen, three ROTA sets gets you a cool painted mosaic room. And I went for it every time. In each case I could always justify the extra sets -- it's DF, you can ALWAYS justify getting more -- but to be honest, without those incentives I probably wouldn't have. The river set, which only included one dead end, maybe I'd have sprung for two, so I could cap a stream at both ends or just make a small lake. But I doubt I'd have gotten three, certainly not all at once. Didn't need three ROTA wicked addition sets or three lake expansion sets either. Ended up with enough resin water to choke a horse! Maybe I'd have gotten more gradually over time -- but even knowing that made it more tempting ("if you're gonna end up paying for three and storing three eventually, why shoot yourself in the foot and miss the chance to get the exclusive piece?"). So -- I have anecdotal data that it CAN be a good business practice! Question is, obviously, whether they'd make more by selling fewer basic sets but making up for it by selling more sets that have these bling pieces in them. But, again, that's a data question -- doesn't seem to me that intuition or anecdotes really answer it.
I'm just curious about why you're not convinced of the effectiveness of the exclusive model.