Hasbro/WOTC: Recognize the union or you will lose me as a customer

Quote from AntonSirius >>

Quote from Character77006 >>

Which the cost is passed along to the consumer

 

That's really not how it works

The economics of pricing are very well established at this point. Companies charge whatever maximizes their revenue. It's purely a projection of x (price) times y (sales) equals z (revenue) to get the biggest z

Nobody "passes along costs to the consumer". If they did, prices would come down when companies reduced costs after layoffs, which, lol

 We're way off the subject of DnD here, but suggesting pricing decisions are all about maximizing revenue is not the reality for decision makers. I managed a large product line for several years, and if I had made pricing decisions with the primary intention of capturing maximum revenue I would not have been employed at that company long. The most important thing to most companies is growing profits, with revenue growth a highly desirable secondary goal.

Growing revenue as the primary focus at a very mature company like Hasbro would get the management team fired. Prioritizing revenue over profitability is possible for a period of time in new markets, new technologies, or when a company is trying to capture a dominant market position, but none of these apply to DnD (or MtG for that matter), and the goal with that strategy is to be set up for big profits once maturity is reached.

Agreed 100% that corporate layoffs seldom if ever lead to pricing reductions. In fact almost nothing leads to price reductions, as we see on a continuous loop in the last few years. 

Quote from AntonSirius >>

Quote from Character77006 >>

Which the cost is passed along to the consumer

 

That's really not how it works

The economics of pricing are very well established at this point. Companies charge whatever maximizes their revenue. It's purely a projection of x (price) times y (sales) equals z (revenue) to get the biggest z

Nobody "passes along costs to the consumer". If they did, prices would come down when companies reduced costs after layoffs, which, lol

So, I think you're putting lipstick on a pig here. For instance we've had a lot of inflation with recent tariff wars. And tariffs are just putting a tax on imports. So to pay for that tax, companies increased their prices. We know this because the US president got very mad publicly about companies doing just that, even threatened them. Now sure, that's all part of a revenue projection model, but is it not also passing on their cost increases to the customer? Also I feel like you really should make it (price - cost) * sales = revenue. It's not like everything here is being produced for free.

Also can we not conflate passing on costs to passing on savings? Obviously if a company finds their base can bare a new price point, they would rather take the money... And when I say bare, it really is dependent on their strategy. For instance, with video game DLC, market psychology has honed in on a price point. Use to be ~$8 if I remember correctly. They knew that if you go higher, people are less likely to buy despite it meaning more profit per sale. It's really a perception thing. This is more likely what WotC will consider when they think about budgeting and pricing changes. Will the consumer bare to pay a little more, or will they be turned off and thus lose the company sales? If market research says the latter they'd likely eat the cost, I think especially if they see it as a one-time expense.

Now will lawyering up affect Hasbro's bottom line? Yes.
Will they lawyer up? Likely, but I think we should wait for any official confirmation or reliable corroboration. 
Does that mean that they'll 'pass on the costs' to customer? Not necessarily.
Could they make a really stupid move here or burn away any good will they may have by being heavy handed? It's WotC/Hasbro, but still not necessarily.

I do not think the “costs passed along to consumer” discussion is really relevant to this thread.  That said, it is worth noting that Wizards has been historically extremely reluctant to pass costs along to consumers.  Even with their recent price increases, both Magic and D&D were the cheapest new MSRP in their respective games’ history when you adjust for inflation.  Particularly impressive when you look at how paper products have generally been increasing above average inflation.

So, even if this discussion was relevant, I think it is a bit unfounded based on Wizards’ long history in how it sets prices.

Quote from AntonSirius >>

The economics of pricing are very well established at this point. Companies charge whatever maximizes their revenue. It's purely a projection of x (price) times y (sales) equals z (revenue) to get the biggest z

Nobody "passes along costs to the consumer". If they did, prices would come down when companies reduced costs after layoffs, which, lol

Um... no, that's not actually the way it works. Companies charge whatever maximizes their profit, which is not the same thing (the actual way costs and price interact depends on a lot of factors and is by no means linear, but higher costs generally favor higher prices and fewer units sold). 

They hired Fisher-Phillips.

They're a knockoff of the Pinkertons.

This begs the question:

Did WotC(Can't remember who the chief is) hire mercs, or did Hasbro(Chris Cocks)?

Quote from MaedraDawnkeeper >>

They hired Fisher-Phillips.

They're a knockoff of the Pinkertons.

Quote from Allurian219 >>

Quote from AntonSirius >>

Quote from Character77006 >>

Which the cost is passed along to the consumer

 

That's really not how it works

The economics of pricing are very well established at this point. Companies charge whatever maximizes their revenue. It's purely a projection of x (price) times y (sales) equals z (revenue) to get the biggest z

Nobody "passes along costs to the consumer". If they did, prices would come down when companies reduced costs after layoffs, which, lol

 We're way off the subject of DnD here, but suggesting pricing decisions are all about maximizing revenue is not the reality for decision makers. I managed a large product line for several years, and if I had made pricing decisions with the primary intention of capturing maximum revenue I would not have been employed at that company long. The most important thing to most companies is growing profits, with revenue growth a highly desirable secondary goal.

Growing revenue as the primary focus at a very mature company like Hasbro would get the management team fired. Prioritizing revenue over profitability is possible for a period of time in new markets, new technologies, or when a company is trying to capture a dominant market position, but none of these apply to DnD (or MtG for that matter), and the goal with that strategy is to be set up for big profits once maturity is reached.

Agreed 100% that corporate layoffs seldom if ever lead to pricing reductions. In fact almost nothing leads to price reductions, as we see on a continuous loop in the last few years. 

You are correct, I was oversimplifying it

Quote from brandoncarbaugh >>

Recognize your union and give them a fair contract, or you will lose my support as a customer.

Hasbro uses the Pinkertons.

And since it’s not the turn of the 19th century, that’s not really a relevant talking point.

I mean, Fisher-Phillips does specialize in the management's side in employment issues, but what else are you expecting? As employers go, Hasbro appears to be best described as "boringly average"; they're not the good guys, they're out for their own profits, but they also don't have a history of being spectacularly terrible.

Quote from The_Ace_of_Rogues >>

And since it’s not the turn of the 19th century, that’s not really a relevant talking point.

 Tell that to the NUMEROUS unions they've busted, even to this day.

Quote from Void_Darkstar >>

Whaa, whaa. If you're going to keep whining, go cry to somebody that really gives a hoot. Who really cares? Maybe the commies do. Unions are the last thing I would think about when playing dnd.

Does product quality matter to you? Because Creatives secure in their jobs, paid enough to live, and not being crunched into oblivion make richer, tighter, better designed products.
As it stands now there have been mass layoffs even in the face of record profits, usually before Christmas so bean counter can say they reduced overhead before the end of the Fiscal quarter, and that leaves everyone feeling disposable. Because why burn yourself out doing your best when they throw you away like garbage no matter how well you do?

Do you care about personable product ambassadors? Because the ones who reignited old interest, or cultivated new fan enthusiasm keep getting unceremoniously dumped as well, or jump ship. Todd Kenerek the former face of official DND News, and Tristan Falcone who got their job at WoTC from being a popular Live Player among their other skills were both just dumped without ceremony, and Perkins and JCraw, the designers of 5E retired to go work with a smaller company of less acclaim, likely because they saw people being ground into hamburger then discarded year after year.

Do you care about Product mechanical consistency, coherent design and complete tightly written stories in modules? Because if you aren't meatgrindering your creatives all the time, you wouldn't get narative gaps in stories that could have been great like Shattered Obelisk, because the creators would have a mind clear of stress, anxiety and desperation enough to tie up all the threads into a wonderous tapestry instead of... what we got, someone that all my friends tell me to skip.

We care about this not just because we want people treated well, it will likely improve product quality greatly.

And lastly... why don't you take your own advice, you whining about other people whining is still whining, so go cry to someone else about you not caring about things.
You didn't have to say a thing if you didn't care, so why are you?