NZ Retailer bans violent games

[Skinia]

More socialist bullshit. What more could you expect from a pansy-ass, Queen-loving, tea-drinking bunch of islands next to 'straya?

You say in your sig that you support an "absolutely free market". That would involve retailers having absolute freedom on what they stock, wouldn't it?

Seriously, the name of the thread is completely misleading.

[Hurdegaryp]

You say in your sig that you support an "absolutely free market". That would involve retailers having absolute freedom on what they stock, wouldn't it?

Seriously, the name of the thread is completely misleading.

Most of NationStates General is completely misleading. What exactly is your point?

[Forsher]

They are avlberjack; the punchingÿ is theref[url][/url]ore okay.

Are you okay? You need anything? You need a glass of water?

Let's put it this way, I went to sleep pretty much straight after writing that.

There is nothing to suggest warehouse stands to increase it's revenue this way. It's just sensibility stupidity, and that's really all.

Unless you have some studies that suggest including violent/sexual media reduces visits from non-target demographics.

Wow. Just wow. I won't provide studies and I won't look for studies until you can explain why what I wrote is illogical. You can't because it is logical. In other words, 'm not going to waste my time when the response I'm getting to what I've written three times now (this is the third) is, "Your explanations conflict with my base assumptions about life so I'm going to stick my fingers in my ears and pretend that studies will change my mind". If you want me to try and find studies you really do need to show that there's some sort of theoretical or logical reason why my explanations thus far aren't sufficient.

I'll make it absolutely clear. By increasing the appeal of the shop to its target market segment (i.e. families) the Warehouse believes it will gain more than it loses from this decision. R18 is, by definition, not family oriented. It follows that families will not wander past the shelves that contain material that the parents would rather their children do not see. Shops like the Warehouse (and also Supermarkets) to a large extent rely on in-store impulse purchases, which is why one frequently finds out about promotions relevant to an area by looking at the shelves. Having customers (esp. those who might make tantrum purchases) not look at stuff is not good. This is particularly true if the reason for this is the Warehouse's attempts to pander to non-target segments. Alternatively, you could think of it in the way that Salandriagado does:

Actually, this might work out to be a decent business move. The people buying those games are probably mostly just buying them online anyway, so the retailer might be hoping to attract more parents buying stuff for their kids (who are more likely to buy them in person) by getting rid of them, and expecting the increased sales from that to outweigh the loss from not selling these violent games.

If this post seems abrasive/rude it's because I'm irritated by the lack of thought put into the response.

So where does supply and demand fit into this? Shouldn't it be that if the retailer wont provide what the customer wants then one that will provide shows up? And in the age of digital content and world wide shipping, It may not be as convenient as having a physical storefront to fulfill your needs, but it should adapt to fill the groove in the market. Sure, buyers will be out of luck for a bit, but market force is pretty damn strong so give it a month or two before the need is filled.

What I love is the quote at the end of the article;

"So-called 'entertainment' and freedom of expression should never be at the expense of the safety of our community, appropriate emotional and moral development of our children, and promoting acceptable attitudes towards women, violence and law enforcement."

It seems this "So-called" freedom of expression is meddling with our perfect little world. I miss the days before the internet when we had complete control over all the information our children had. Remember when they thought the world was cube shaped and there wasnt such a thing as rap music? Those were the days. And dont even get me started on acceptable views of women. Damn brood mares getting pretentious with all this poisonous talk of rights and such.

That quote is not from the Warehouse, just pointing that out.

That's a dumb business decision. However, it is a private entity, and it's their right to do so. I'm not saying I support their decision, but they have every right to make it.

It's really not. Good business decisions do not involve trying to cater to everyone (or, at least, not in the same ways). Do you know any business that tries that? Not even supermarkets do. Countdown, for instance, tries to get people who want lower prices with some service. Pak'n'Save is more bare-boned again and tries to be cheaper again. New World tries to provide a decent experience, and typically has lower range and medium prices.

Why do businesses not do this? Because segments conflict. They have separate needs and wants so the same things can appeal to some segments while putting off other ones. As a quick illustration, R18 games appeal to certain kinds of gamers but by their very nature don't appeal to families (unless, you know, anyone's arguing that the likes of GTA are aimed at families*). You therefore have to consider whether or not the lost revenue from families caused by the conflict is outweighed by gamers... over whom the Warehouse is competing with the internet and other businesses to a much larger extent (there's no where quite like the Warehouse that isn't another Warehouse**). The Warehouse (and me) clearly think that continuing to cater to gamers who want R18 titles isn't worth it.

*Although, by family I mean it as a collective. It is quite possible that some parts of the family would quite like GTA whilst simultaneously not considering it appropriate for the family, yeah?

**I believe the same thing is done by Wal-Mart. At any rate, as it applies to Wal-Mart in smaller locales, this is noted in Teece's "Business models, business strategy and innovation".

You say in your sig that you support an "absolutely free market". That would involve retailers having absolute freedom on what they stock, wouldn't it?

Seriously, the name of the thread is completely misleading.

To an extent, the only confusing part is "violent games". Substitute R18 titles and problem solv-ed.

[Faith Hope Charity]

A Retailer doesn't have the power to ban anything, they just refuse to sell it.

Also, Steam is your best friend when it comes to buying video games.

[The Two Jerseys]

They're a private company, if they don't want to sell certain games it's their right.

Though if I were in New Zealand, I'd be more than happy to take my business elsewhere.

[Condunum]

Are you okay? You need anything? You need a glass of water?

Let's put it this way, I went to sleep pretty much straight after writing that.

There is nothing to suggest warehouse stands to increase it's revenue this way. It's just sensibility stupidity, and that's really all.

Unless you have some studies that suggest including violent/sexual media reduces visits from non-target demographics.

Wow. Just wow. I won't provide studies and I won't look for studies until you can explain why what I wrote is illogical. You can't because it is logical. In other words, 'm not going to waste my time when the response I'm getting to what I've written three times now (this is the third) is, "Your explanations conflict with my base assumptions about life so I'm going to stick my fingers in my ears and pretend that studies will change my mind". If you want me to try and find studies you really do need to show that there's some sort of theoretical or logical reason why my explanations thus far aren't sufficient.

I'll make it absolutely clear. By increasing the appeal of the shop to its target market segment (i.e. families) the Warehouse believes it will gain more than it loses from this decision. R18 is, by definition, not family oriented. It follows that families will not wander past the shelves that contain material that the parents would rather their children do not see. Shops like the Warehouse (and also Supermarkets) to a large extent rely on in-store impulse purchases, which is why one frequently finds out about promotions relevant to an area by looking at the shelves. Having customers (esp. those who might make tantrum purchases) not look at stuff is not good. This is particularly true if the reason for this is the Warehouse's attempts to pander to non-target segments. Alternatively, you could think of it in the way that Salandriagado does:

Actually, this might work out to be a decent business move. The people buying those games are probably mostly just buying them online anyway, so the retailer might be hoping to attract more parents buying stuff for their kids (who are more likely to buy them in person) by getting rid of them, and expecting the increased sales from that to outweigh the loss from not selling these violent games.

If this post seems abrasive/rude it's because I'm irritated by the lack of thought put into the response.

So where does supply and demand fit into this? Shouldn't it be that if the retailer wont provide what the customer wants then one that will provide shows up? And in the age of digital content and world wide shipping, It may not be as convenient as having a physical storefront to fulfill your needs, but it should adapt to fill the groove in the market. Sure, buyers will be out of luck for a bit, but market force is pretty damn strong so give it a month or two before the need is filled.

What I love is the quote at the end of the article;

"So-called 'entertainment' and freedom of expression should never be at the expense of the safety of our community, appropriate emotional and moral development of our children, and promoting acceptable attitudes towards women, violence and law enforcement."

It seems this "So-called" freedom of expression is meddling with our perfect little world. I miss the days before the internet when we had complete control over all the information our children had. Remember when they thought the world was cube shaped and there wasnt such a thing as rap music? Those were the days. And dont even get me started on acceptable views of women. Damn brood mares getting pretentious with all this poisonous talk of rights and such.

That quote is not from the Warehouse, just pointing that out.

That's a dumb business decision. However, it is a private entity, and it's their right to do so. I'm not saying I support their decision, but they have every right to make it.

It's really not. Good business decisions do not involve trying to cater to everyone (or, at least, not in the same ways). Do you know any business that tries that? Not even supermarkets do. Countdown, for instance, tries to get people who want lower prices with some service. Pak'n'Save is more bare-boned again and tries to be cheaper again. New World tries to provide a decent experience, and typically has lower range and medium prices.

Why do businesses not do this? Because segments conflict. They have separate needs and wants so the same things can appeal to some segments while putting off other ones. As a quick illustration, R18 games appeal to certain kinds of gamers but by their very nature don't appeal to families (unless, you know, anyone's arguing that the likes of GTA are aimed at families*). You therefore have to consider whether or not the lost revenue from families caused by the conflict is outweighed by gamers... over whom the Warehouse is competing with the internet and other businesses to a much larger extent (there's no where quite like the Warehouse that isn't another Warehouse**). The Warehouse (and me) clearly think that continuing to cater to gamers who want R18 titles isn't worth it.

*Although, by family I mean it as a collective. It is quite possible that some parts of the family would quite like GTA whilst simultaneously not considering it appropriate for the family, yeah?

**I believe the same thing is done by Wal-Mart. At any rate, as it applies to Wal-Mart in smaller locales, this is noted in Teece's "Business models, business strategy and innovation".

Seriously, the name of the thread is completely misleading.

To an extent, the only confusing part is "violent games". Substitute R18 titles and problem solv-ed.

Alright, I'll concede. I just don't like how their publicly stated reason reads like "buh traditional family values"

[Skinia]

Seriously, the name of the thread is completely misleading.

Most of NationStates General is completely misleading. What exactly is your point?

The retailer didn't ban anything. When people see the word 'ban', they think of the NZ government going all Australia, even though it was just a private company refusing to sell certain content.

[Purpelia]

Most of NationStates General is completely misleading. What exactly is your point?

The retailer didn't ban anything. When people see the word 'ban', they think of the NZ government going all Australia, even though it was just a private company refusing to sell certain content.

That is still a ban. The word ban can be completely legitimately used for describing when a company discontinues the sale of certain items within its stores.

[Western-Ukraine]

Very good retailer! A good initiative had to come from somewhere.

[Insaeldor]

I respect you moral reasoning but due have fun loosing profits to your competitors.