Online Gaming Store Lowers Prices 75%, Sees Sales Shoot Up 5500%
from the price-elasticity dept
We were just talking about how some in the recording industry are realizing that raising prices on downloadable songs may have been a mistake (just as the book publishing world is pushing to raise ebook prices -- despite a fair bit of evidence that people actually are expecting prices to go in the other direction). It's as if they don't understand price elasticity and how you can quite often maximize revenue by lowering price.In the video game world, at least, they seem more open to this concept. Last year we wrote about Valve reporting on some numbers that showed the more they reduced the price, the greater the money they brought in. In the case of reducing the price by 75%, Valve found sales increased 1470%. Not bad! But apparently an online video gaming store in Sweden has them beat.
Rasmus Larsson points us to a report from an online gaming store that also reduced prices by 75% and saw sales increase by an astounding 5500% (Google translation from the original). A similar test, with a price decrease of 50% saw sales increase 533%. Interestingly, after each price decrease, the company put the price back up again and saw a (slight) sales increase at the higher price too. As the article notes "the price is marketing."
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: digital goods, marketing, price, price elasticity, video games
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
These stats align with my buying habits
I probably bought more (PC) games in those two weeks than I had all the rest of the year combined.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: These stats align with my buying habits
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: These stats align with my buying habits
A few of them were games I had pirated in the past and wanted to own legally. Others were interesting ones that I haven't had time to play and maybe never will... Ah, the irony of sometimes not paying to play and others paying to not play...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: These stats align with my buying habits
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think that last word should have been "too".
But to the point, I'm sure that increase in sales at the original higher price level more than likely can be attributed to the dramatic increase in sales at the lower price, where those people told their friends about this awesome game. When the friends went to purchase it on recommendation, the price was higher, but they purchased it anyway because they had a personal recommendation that the game was good from someone they trust.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But...but...YOU CANT!!
Now that I have cleared off all the standard shill/troll arguments, maybe we can discuss why this is a GOOD idea and works so well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But...but...YOU CANT!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: But...but...YOU CANT!!
For example although we didn’t buy any games recently the travel agents at the bottom of our street had a sale, so my wife and I bought a last minute winter holiday to the same resort as our friends, we were definitely not planning on being able to make it this year as our finances are in a poor state.
If the holiday had not been cheap (by holiday standards) we would not have gone, the place would most likely have gone unsold.
To pay for this we are tightening our belts considerably, so the restaurant we often go to won’t see us for a while, we’ll probably buy more value brands in the supermarket etc.
The total amount of money we have to spend has not changed, but our priorities did as a result of the lower prices and I would guess the same is true of the online stores in question. End result, while their customers don’t magically get more money, the store does (often) see more of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
if they are making money at the reduced price and they could support that level of sales constantly, it would be a good thing.
I suspect though either the price is unsupportable, or they would just drain the market more quickly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think you don't understand digital distribution, antimike.
What are they going to drain the market of? Their own product? If this is an online game they have other ways to make more money in the long run (if set up to do so), and if it's not an online game then the only cost is bandwidth, which is something they already pay/allocate for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Can you explain what you mean here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Doesn't it mean you have sold as much as you possibly can?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
trend analysis
*lowers price more* *sales increase more*
"Hey, I think I see a trend here. Got to try it the other way just to be sure."
*raises price* *sales still increase*
"WTF?!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You don't think . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You don't think . . .
Also, what about titles that don't sell as well? These low sellers may require a higher price point to support their creation than a blockbuster.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You don't think . . .
"Hmmmm...I can buy this best-selling critically acclaimed game for $10, or this no-name, unpopular game for $40. Well, I feel bad for those poor no-name developers and their need to recoup costs, so I'll pay the $40."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You don't think . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
400% increase sales = 100% old price sales levels.
5500/4=1375% or 13x more sales if you was to sell at the old price.
McDonalds and Seven Eleven both use dinamic stocking to attend their clients, they know exactly what sells and for how much and new supplies are ordered by the sales analyses.
Maybe an anologue to that would be realtime node(region) price analyses, you can have different prices for different people in different regions in different times and see what makes sense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 400% increase sales = 100% old price sales levels.
If they could cut their price by 75% and still be profitable, they were probably charged about 75% too much before.
As the AC mention, the financial info would be much more useful than percentages.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 400% increase sales = 100% old price sales levels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 400% increase sales = 100% old price sales levels. - More genius from the TAMTard
You just REFUSE to accept that there is ANY other way to do things but what Big Media has to offer.
Once again, you are raising specious arguments. (that means, false, misleading, not applicable)
This article is about (get ready, big flashing neon caps coming):
ONLINE
GAMING
STORE
This means, there is NEAR ZERO marginal cost involved. Once again, its an INFINITE GOOD (something you REFUSE to understand the mechanics of). Storage space and bandwidth, which are DIRT CHEAP bordering on NEAR ZERO cost, are all that is needed. Oh sure, there is a little overhead in the transaction (web site, CC payment) but again, thats pretty marginal. It is NOWHERE NEAR what this would be if it was a traditional, physical product (the only kind you seem to understand or accept as valid) that would have to be made out of SCARCE PHYSICAL GOODS (see the difference yet?), shipped to a store, deal with returns, etc.
Try to understand the topic and issues before you post, it will make you look better in the long run, instead of like a child who has to take AUTOMATIC EXCEPTION at everything just because.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 400% increase sales = 100% old price sales levels. - More genius from the TAMTard
If the product was dirt cheap to start with and they prices it so high that nobody was buying, that was their own problem.
Try to understand the topic and issues before you post, it will make you look better in the long run, instead of like a child who has to take AUTOMATIC EXCEPTION at everything just because.
I understand the topic. The question is: Is it profitable? If it is still profitable with a 75% lower price, then they were likely 75% overpriced.
But again, it is a question of numbers. What is the overhead per transaction (including things like CC processing, back office accounting, and all those other actual marginal costs per transaction). It's one of the odd things you learn when you actually run a business, that the product is only part of the cost, not the whole cost. Each transaction creates it's own costs.
So all the percentage numbers and all that are nice, but the question remains: at 75% less, was it still bottom line profitable? If so, was their retail price 75% too high?
I am not taking exception, I am saying there is a lack of information (and everyone else is just guess and tossing numbers about without really knowing).
The only thing scarce in this discussion is your brain cells. Perhaps you want to learn to read what I post before you go off on me? Dumbass!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 400% increase sales = 100% old price sales levels. - More genius from the TAMTard
Ah, the "always respect/never make personal attacks" TAMhole.
"If the product was dirt cheap to start with and they prices it so high that nobody was buying, that was their own problem."
This sentence makes no sense.
"Try to understand the topic and issues before you post, it will make you look better in the long run, instead of like a child who has to take AUTOMATIC EXCEPTION at everything just because.
I understand the topic. The question is: Is it profitable? If it is still profitable with a 75% lower price, then they were likely 75% overpriced."
Maybe, but why are you arguing this? You ALWAYS argue in FAVOR of maximum prices, because otherwise you are "devaluing" the product. The ONLY reason you are SUDDENLY taking the opposite stance is because you want to "get" Mike and everyone, so you need to pick a fight.
"But again, it is a question of numbers. What is the overhead per transaction (including things like CC processing, back office accounting, and all those other actual marginal costs per transaction). It's one of the odd things you learn when you actually run a business, that the product is only part of the cost, not the whole cost. Each transaction creates it's own costs."
I addressed this. Try to read. And I have run a business, so I know all about these issues. They ARE costs, but here we are talking about an ONLINE GAME STORE. The overhead is MINIMAL compared to, say, a retail store. And transactional costs are VERY small compared to revenue for an online operation like this.
"So all the percentage numbers and all that are nice, but the question remains: at 75% less, was it still bottom line profitable? If so, was their retail price 75% too high?"
Again, you miss the salient point. Its not about whether its "too high" (your lame attempt to draw out an argument that doesnt exist in this example) but did their REVENUE (and profit) INCREASE significantly when they LOWERED the price? In this case, it did, a LOT. Not only did it increase, they made MORE MONEY than they did at the higher price.
"I am not taking exception, I am saying there is a lack of information (and everyone else is just guess and tossing numbers about without really knowing)."
Well, thats easy to say as a hedge so you dont have to debate the relevant points. OF COURSE there is more info, we cant know the ENTIRE scope of EACH example like this. Any given example, we cant know EVERY detail of their costs, revenue, etc all the way to the penny. You really need to stop with the "I'm RIGHT but when there is a challenge to my argument, there must be 'more to it'" way of debating, it makes you look like you cant hold up your end of the discussion.
"The only thing scarce in this discussion is your brain cells. Perhaps you want to learn to read what I post before you go off on me? Dumbass!"
I did read, but your evaluation was incomplete. I pointed out where and how it was incomplete. It's not MY fault you keep intentionally ignoring the POINT of the discussion and trying to sidetrack it with minutae and minor points.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 400% increase sales = 100% old price sales levels. - More genius from the TAMTard
Automation of sales, inventory, management and database:
http://open.mitija.com/blueerp/
http://openerp.com/
_______________________________ ___________________________
On-line payment fees:
http://checkout.google.com/support/sell/bin/answer.py?answer=89800
https://www.paypal.com/ cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_display-receiving-fees-outside
2.9% + 0.30 per transaction LoL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_on-line_payment_service_providers
___________________ _______________________________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_Interactive
Price of the games.
http://www.gamersgate.com/DD-EU3COM/europa-universalis-iii-complete
Assuming a high 50% for the website they are using to sell they still get 6x more sales than before
http://www.paradoxplaza.com/games
ps: they do appear to have a dynamic pricing going on.
If the site is accessed by different countries the price seems to change, when I first got there the price was 28 euros now on another proxy is 20 euros or it was my luck.
In the end it doesn't matter, the important part is that with a 75% price reduction they got 2 to 13 times more sales any manager who doesn't know how to make money out of increase sales is a moron and should not be employed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 400% increase sales = 100% old price sales levels.
Wrong again. You are still thinking about it as if it a scarce good, in which the average cost per unit is the same regardless of how many you produce. With a non-scarce good which is distributed digitally (such as is the case with this example) your average cost per unit decreases dramatically as you sell more because your marginal cost is zero. So you are not "tossing your profits", you are making more profits.
Once again you show your failure to grasp scarce vs non-scarce goods.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 400% increase sales = 100% old price sales levels.
A basic illustration on numbers related to this case. Take them as they are, trust me I'm no math geek or economist by any stretch.
Say the game's original cost is $40 and they average selling 1000 "digital units" per day on the weekends. Also lets assume they run this "fire sale" over the weekend(Fri, Sat, Sun) as many of these companies do, such as Steam or Impulse etc.
$40*1000=$40,000x3(days)=$120,000 in revenue for that weekend on that game. Now, slash the price by 75%...So $40-75%=$10. 1000x5.5(5500%)=5500 of "units" sold per day for the sale increase. $10*5500=$55,000x3(days)=$165,000 in sales on the same game over the same time period.
So if I'm calculating that correct that's an increase of about 28% in total revenue. As was mentioned the cost of an infinite good distributed digitally is MUCH smaller than a physical good and will not change no matter what the price is set at. So the choice is easy, sell the product at a significantly lower price point and make more money overall and get it in the hands of many more people for recommendations and word of mouth advertising for all your future products, or just keep ripping your customers for some "magic" profit margin. In other words... do I want to bring in $40,000/day in revenues off this product or $55,000/day?
If someone much smarter than me wishes to make sure my math is correct please feel free, I apologize if something is wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 400% increase sales = 100% old price sales levels.
$40*1,000=$40,000x3(days)=$120,000 in revenue for that weekend on that game. Now, slash the price by 75%...So $40-75%=$10. 1,000x55(5500%)=55,000 of "units" sold per day for the sale increase. $10*55,000=$550,000x3(days)=$1,650,000 in sales on the same game over the same time period.
$1,650,000 vs $120,000 Quite a large difference
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 400% increase sales = 100% old price sales levels.
So they would sell for $1,650,000 over the fire sale weekend. Which means they increased total revenue 1375% not 28%
This means they brought in the same money over one weekend that would have taken them 12.75 weekends to do normally. And after the firesale the regular sales was continuously up 200%. So they brought in $240,000 instead of $120,000 each weekend after the firesale.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 400% increase sales = 100% old price sales levels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 400% increase sales = 100% old price sales levels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 400% increase sales = 100% old price sales levels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 400% increase sales = 100% old price sales levels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 400% increase sales = 100% old price sales levels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 400% increase sales = 100% old price sales levels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 400% increase sales = 100% old price sales levels.
the actual sale price is very tied into the value.
from merriam-webster online
value = the monetary worth of something : market price
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re
That's how these lunkheads have done business for years, and that's all they see.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Anti-Mike is a moron.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bad math ?
Say it cost a company $20,000 to create and post 1 copy of a game on their server. They project that they will sell 5000 copies (downloads) at $20 each download in one year.
5000 x $20 = $100000 projected gross revenue
$100000 - $20,000(cost) = $80,000 net profit
If sales level off at 3000 dl's after 6 months. 3000 x $20 = $60,000 gross
Corporate would see that as a loss of $20,000 gross, even though its actually a net profit of $40,000 so far.
If they then cut the price 50% to $10 they would then need to sell 4000 copies to make up the difference, because there is no additional production outlay for that 1 copy.
4000 x 10 = $40,000.
with the price drop sales increased 400%. Meaning they sold 12,000 copies at $10.
3000 + 400% = 12,000
12,000 x $10 = $120,000 in new gross revenue.
$120,000 + $60,000(initial gross) = $180,000 total gross
$180,000 - $20,000(initial cost) = $160,000 net porfit
Thats $80,000 over the initial projected net profit.
So TAM how would lowering the price cut into the profits when it actually doubled them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bad math ?
MY bad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bad math ?
Further, there is the question of cost. If they paid a flat fee for the games, then things might work out. But if the games are licensed or have a unit cost (effective marginal costs), adding sales may not be the best way to do, depending on what that number is.
Example, if something costs you $1 per unit, plus another $1 for accounting, selling it for $5 makes you a $3 profit. Dropping the price by 75% to $1.25 would get you a whole bunch more sales, but you would no longer be profitable.
You see, you are making assumptions of a flat cost structure, and no other overhead. It isn't clear that they have flat cost structures (most retail businesses don't), and overhead moves as you add unit sales.
Without the actual numbers, there is no way to tell what is what. Percentages don't tell the story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bad math ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AllofMp3 example
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: AllofMp3 example
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hmive m i bought 10 games from the holiday sale
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The same concept works with taxation...
Tax less and you decrease the price of doing business, which frees up money for investment and hiring. So, tax revenues go up (as business increases).
Lower prices sell more units; lower taxes grow more businesses. Raised prices sell fewer units; raised taxes grow fewer businesses.
As simple as this truth is, it is amazing that there are businesses (and governments like the US, among others) that still refuse to accept it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now, why didn't they stick to the 75% discounted price? Is that what the CEO means when he says price is marketing? Keep a steady price and keep offering massive discounts every now and then, instead of slashing prices permanently.
Perhaps they think it isn't sustainable...in the longer run, they are better off offering a reasonable price and having such fire sales once in a way. Web hosting companies do it all the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That is exactly the way I understood it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]