Ok at the risk of feeding what is a super-size circular conversation here is a very specific measurable example of prizes and their relation to attendees.
For many years Wizards of the Coast offered amateur awards at PTQs. To receive one you could not have a Pro Point. How the boosters were awarded was left to the local organizer. In fact, many organizers were quite creative with those awards. Each PTQ regardless of size got 72 additional boosters.
My suggestion to you Stephan would be discover the date those prizes were added, review attendance. Up down static? Then review the removal of those prizes again looking for changes doing as much as you can to account for changes which you alone deem material.
I've done this already. I know, yes-from my perspective, that answer. I could go on for hours about what I think does materially affect PTQ attendance, oh wait I already did.
No organizer owes you this answer, if you want it bad enough the data is in the public domain. Go get it tiger!
500 players in MODO isn't equivalent to real-world PTQs primarily because we're talking about a global pool of players.
If the wizards model is successful, then are you of the opinion that nothing is wrong with the PTQ system? "If it ain't broke, don't fix it?" That sort of thing?
The problem, as I've gotten from Steven's post is that the PTQ system doesn't retain players as well as its should. Arguments about TO's profit margins all seem tertiary to that main point.
The PTQ system doesn't do a good job of retaining players. Alot of them burn out and stop going to PTQs. A large part of this is that the rewards of the PTQ system beyond the first place prize are not enough to provide value to most PTQ players.
I don't think I'm off base with those statements, nor do I think I'm misinterpretting Steven when he says thats the problem.
I don't think that is a problem.
The PTQ system doesn't do a good job of rewarding and retaining players, but it doesn't have to. Organized Play does an excellent job of rewarding and retaining players. Between Grand Prixs, PreReleases, Release parties, Game Days and FNMs, there are tons of valuable enjoyable and rewarding Organized Play events that do an excellent job of rewarding and retaining players. Those events are what Organized Play uses to do what Steven wants (at least as I am reading it) and they do a good job. Also, the 3rd party 5K's also do an excellent job.
The PTQ system doesn't need to grow the playerbase. There are other tools for that. The PTQ system needs to support the Pro Tour and keep it functional as the marketing tool that Wizards wants it to be. I think it accomplishes that goal.
Framing the argument as one of economics seems a little counterproductive. It seems a lot more like an argument that says "this screwdriver does a poor job of opening this can of vegetables" which while true, isn't the screwdrivers intended purpose.
I'm going to try to outlay a reasonable estimation of costs for running a PTQ, and in doing show so some differences between Smennen's assumptions and reality. Likely, it will have no effect, but it's a slow morning at work, so here goes.
(Disclosure: I operate a VERY small game stroe in my hometown. we are open two nights a week. Thus, some of my costs are perfectly accurate)
From the Top! (apologies to GerryT)
1. Every constructed PTQ I have gone to is $25, while every sealed has been $30.
2. Cost of Product is inaccurate. Unless you are buying ridiculous volume, (>$25,000 per quarter) you generally pay about 53% of retail, or $76.12 per box. We'll round down, even though the distributor won't. ; )
3. Attendance is rarely 200. As pointed out previously, only a handful hit 200 or more. I don't have an actual average attendance number (If someone does, awesome) but closer to 150 seems correct. yes, this varies based on season and area, but I feel is certainly more accurate than 200.
4. Missing overhead costs. Taxes, business licensing, equipment, etc. Some states require sales Tax be paid on events and services, some don't. You are required to have a business license in order to purchase from distributors. Costs on that vary widely based on location. We'll tackle more specifics later.
So, let's run some numbers for a PTO running 9 PTQs a year (3 per season)
Revenue: Event 1, constructed, 3750 in revenue, x3 = 11250 for season 1.
Event 2, also Constructed, same.
Event 3, sealed, 4500 revenue , 13500 for the season. Total revenue for the year: $36,000
Product required for non-prize use (compensation, sealed product, etc.)
4 staff per event seems acceptable, except sealed, where you'll probably want 5. Total 12+ 12+ 15= 39. for 150 players, you need 25 boxes per sealed event. That's 75 boxes for the season.
114 boxes *76 = 8664 in non-prize product required.
Location costs
You assign $1000 here, which seems fair.
cost $9000
Equipment: I'm assuming most of these TO's run these out of a home office, and are not renting an office suite. Nonetheless, they probably have real jobs, and I wouldn't want the product left on my doorstep all day while I'm working. Personally, my store uses a UPS box for shipping, as it's secure and they will hold the shipment for a few days if I get behind. It runs $120 for a year. A new laptop every year, which seems feasible to continue to run tournaments, is about $1000, as a ballpark. Similarly, a new Printer $100 a year. Gas is varied, if you live out east it's probably less, the west, more. We'll assume it's minimal ($5) for one of the three, and more ($50) for the other 2. Assume 2 of the 3 are $10 parking, the third free. Throw in an oil change (since we're driving close to 3000 miles for the year just in events) at $30, and our travel costs are $125 per season, $375 + 25 = $400 in travel costs per year. Ink, pens, tape, paper, and other costs are probably pretty reasonable, let's assume $50 per event average. It could be lower for constructed, higher for sealed, but I'm comfortable with this average. $450 in misc. The last cost would be a business license, and to be honest, I have no clue. Living in a small town, and having no actual employees, I don't have to do anything but register. Other locales may be drastically different. Additionally, sales tax could be an issue. I know Nebraska charges a 5% tax on services. Oregon, on the other hand, has no sales tax. Another mystery. Total Miscellaneous $2070
So, we have revenue of $36,000, and costs (with no prizes) of $19,734, not counting potential licensing and tax costs.
Smennen seems to believe 3 packs per player in prizes is pretty standard math, as illustrated in the OP. That's 450 packs per event, or 12.5 boxes. Round that up to 13, and we have 117 more boxes, which is another $8,892 for prizes. Meaning, that for a year of normal, current prizes, we have total revenue of $36,000 and costs estimated at $28,626, leaving a profit of $7,374 per year, not including taxes and licensing. That's approximately $819 per event, and given the expected 25+ hours of work expected for each event (arrangements, travel, the actual event, etc.) means a wage of somewhere in the area of $30+ per hour.
This may seem like a very nice wage, but the TO's are also taking very large risks. One terrible turnout could easily decimate a years worth of profits. Snowstorm in Denver, turnout is now 83 for sealed. That's over $2000 in revenue lost. I could envision a bad format ruining an entire season. Considering that TO's are placing a lot of money into it up front, they certainly deserve a decent profit for the year. It's certainly a far cry from the massive profits Smennen is envisioning.
Smennen's counterfactual of the $1,000,000 prize PTQ hasn't been refuted, that I've seen. The notion that more prizes would increase attendance seems undeniable to me, yet many deny it.
And if you can find someone who can afford to offer a $1,000,000 prize PTQ, you're welcome to lobby Wizards to create one.
Smennen talks about demand curves and multiple factors a lot. But at no point has he shown the slope of those curves, or the weight of those factors. If making the prize payout $1,000,000 tripled the PTQ attendance, it would simply be not worth it. And that's what the people who actually attend PTQs are saying - the prize payout, other than the invite, matters so little that you would have to multiply the prize payout just to get a handful more people playing. This is what inelastic demand is - a small response to a significant price change. And since people are not perfect rational agents, there is a threshold below which "small slope" or "small factor weight" is identical to "zero slope" or "zero factor weight". This is why people say "I don't go for the prize payout" - because it falls below their evaluation threshold and thus has no effect on the rational process used to determine if they're going to go to a PTQ.
If you think that the weight of the factor doesn't matter, then it wouldn't matter what form the factor takes. The TO could offer jewelry instead of packs. Would it increase attendance if you could win a 2-carat diamond ring? Yes, it would. And it would be ridiculously inefficient in terms of number of players acquired for the cost.
As a side note, Smennen's comparison to the housing bubble is either simply a poor analogy or an actual misunderstanding of what happened in the housing bubble, in particular his insistence that he's not saying the system is broken right now. In the housing bubble, the system was broken long before the bubble burst. If you're comparing PTQs to that, you are saying that they're actually currently broken.
I have played in 3 PTQs and I'm-not-sure-I-remember-how-many JSS Qualifier events over my Magic playing career. Over the course of every single one of those events, not once did I think, "Man, I hope I can win this next round so I can walk away with a box or possibly more than a box of MAGIC: THE GATHERING trading card game product!"
You are the only person who has overtly stated incentive for PTQs is anything more than the Qualification to the Pro Tour. Every other person has said that, to the contrary, they only play to make it to the larger event.
This just. isn't. true.
While many people have stated that they play in PTQs for other reason, it only takes one example to prove you wrong, so I'll give you an example from this thread.
I don't have to drive that far, but I'm in a similar place. The closest PTQs to me are almost 3 hours away. Even when I go with 3 friends to carpool, it's still gonna cost me 15-20 bucks for gas, money for food, possibly for a hotel, the entry fee, all that, is rarely worth how much I could have bought in packs/singles GUARANTEED, rather than a 'shot' at packs. I go for the gameplay and fun, possible trades/casual games, a chance at the invite, and mostly to test my mettle against other players. The prizes are nice, and they help me justify going, but they're icing, not cake.
Let me break it down. Reasons he cited for playing in PTQS?
1) gameplay and fun, 2) trades/pick up gaemes, 3) a chance at an invite, 4) to test his skills against top competition.
He mentioned THREE Other reasons for playing in PTQs. So much for your claim that PTQ "only play to make it to the larger event.'
You need to stop saying that, because it's just not true. I've been refuting this claim since the first page. You are being too reductionist, as are tons of other people here. Just because you only play for the invite, doesn't mean other people don't consider other factors relevant.
Moreover, regarding your point about how people self-reflect, of COURSE people want the best possible prize, but that doesn't make other prizes irrellevant! It doesn't logically follow from what you said that other prizes don't also act as an incentive to attend! But that's exactly what you are saying.
Whether or not this allows Wizards to move more product is irrelevant because the very basis of your argument is based on the assumption that players at a Pro Tour Qualifier are there for something more than to qualify for the Pro Tour. The entire pool of those responding to this thread in regard to that qualifying statement disagree with you. By definition, that makes your statement an (unqualified) opinion.
Except that we have examples that disprove your point. Qualifying is a reason to attend, and it's an important one, but it's far from the only one. In fact, I know people who've attended PTQs just to pick up a few points. From my experience, I certainly did not just attend PTQs to qualify, but to have fun and to compete, and see how my innovations fared.
Your whole arguement is that offering better prizes will increase attendance at PTQs. But I don't see any evidence that attendance is being kept down by poor prize support.
Nor did I say it was. Wizards is doing a great job of replacing players that burnout or quit PTQing. That doesn't mean that PTQ attendance wouldn't be larger if prizes were better; it would.
Yes, TOs can make a ton of money running PTQs - which could be used to offer better prize support. And yes, the amount of prize that is being offered can factor into someone's decision to go. But is there data to show the correlation between the amount of prize support and the number of attendees?
Yes: the fact that TOs actually award other prizes. Clearly, they have determined that giving away other prizes is beneficial to them by increasing attendance, otherwise they wouldn't do it. TOs are profit maximizers, ad giving away prizes when its' completely unnecessary is irrational/stupid. They aren't stupid.
I'm going to try to outlay a reasonable estimation of costs for running a PTQ, and in doing show so some differences between Smennen's assumptions and reality. Likely, it will have no effect, but it's a slow morning at work, so here goes.
(Disclosure: I operate a VERY small game store in my hometown. we are open two nights a week. Thus, some of my costs are perfectly accurate)
From the Top! (apologies to GerryT)
MATH
Jeff:
I still think you are missing some primary costs here.
In both your and Steve's examples, there seems to be the assumption that all judges and staff members should starve during a 12-14 hour event, and that all judges and staff members should sleep in their cars both the day before and the day after an event, if there is travel time to/from the venue.
500 players in MODO isn't equivalent to real-world PTQs primarily because we're talking about a global pool of players.
If the wizards model is successful, then are you of the opinion that nothing is wrong with the PTQ system? "If it ain't broke, don't fix it?" That sort of thing?
Right, as I said... Online and IRL PTQs are not the same, but idealized examples where overhead, organizer issues (delays between rounds! printing sheets for pairings! repair!), and the like are removed from the equation.
Add in that despite global play, not everyone who plays on MODO plays competitively, wants to qualify, has the time, etc, for the PTQ, not everyone has the cards (in the case of Constructed events) -- all the same as IRL. On a good day, for example, about 3 Standard Daily Events will fire, which, Standard season permitting, will have anywhere from 16-50+ players. That's GLOBALLY. Numbers comparable anywhere from your local FNM to a very-well-populated local weekend tourney occur on a global scale on a given day.
While they are not the same thing, outside information like that does make you think. But, to repeat, they're not the same thing, and you could just be getting all of the people who would be playing in Podunk that day as you would in Hokkaido as you would in Pairs all at the same time in one place Online, plus XXxxxDRAGONsCaLeZxxxXX and 56 of his 8-man grinder buddies, whereas those numbers would be far fewer per PTQ if they all held events on the same day in their respective locations.
I still think you are missing some primary costs here.
In both your and Steve's examples, there seems to be the assumption that all judges and staff members should starve during a 12-14 hour event, and that all judges and staff members should sleep in their cars both the day before and the day after an event, if there is travel time to/from the venue.
- Ben Bleiweiss
Are there any annual dues that must be paid to Wizards/the DCI for tournament hosting and the like? I don't remember such costs being mentioned or even listed between examples, even if they are negligible.
The purpose of the PTQ is to generate card sales. As I've said many times now, the Pro Tour exists to serve PTQs, not the inverse. The Pro Tour exists to generate card sales, and it does this by creating a demand for cards at the PTQ level.
Oh, you said this many times before? That must mean you're correct.
Simply asserting the same point repeatedly does not make it correct, nor make you argument seem any less flimsy.
You keep just re-posting and re-posting the same quotes of your same arguments. WE'VE READ THEM! We disagree, and have stated our reasoning. I'll be honest, I've replied to a handful of your comments, and you simply ignore them. You state your frustration with the "trolling", but yet you only respond to those who are insulting you.
Bottom line steve:
You've damaged your reputation beyond repair. You've alienated yourself from whatever readership you may have had. You're emotionally invested in what could have been a decent discourse, which has led to exacerbating the two previous issues above. Last, but certainly not least, you've damaged whatever cause you're promoting, as your argument is neither concise, clear nor pointed at a single desired outcome.
"Creating competition between TO's" is not a solution. It's some end result that you think is better than the current, but there's really no framework of HOW this would be acheived. Everyone here has expressed why they think that end result has many obstacles and costs, while providing seemingly minimal positive impact on the community.
I honestly hope you contintue to battle people on this, because its simply hilarious. Do you really expect us to suddenly say collectively, "Ohhhhh, now we understand, thanks for the insight Steve, all infinity of us now agree with you, and you're so smart, and have taught me so many things."?
Edit:
Alternatively, you could simply pick this up on yet another internet forum, and start all over.
I still think you are missing some primary costs here.
In both your and Steve's examples, there seems to be the assumption that all judges and staff members should starve during a 12-14 hour event, and that all judges and staff members should sleep in their cars both the day before and the day after an event, if there is travel time to/from the venue.
- Ben Bleiweiss
You needy TO's and judges, always wanting rest and nourishment. Obviously, you must barter your box of product for Slim Jims and a refrigerator box.
I was going off the Sroog-ian notion that travel to and from could possibly be done same-day, and that food wouldn't be comped. A reasonable human being would include those, but since we're trying to paint TO's a heartless, soulless robots... (that's a joke, before Smennen gets all ad hominem-y on me. You can include jokes and not be trolling, you know.)
Thanks for the additional input, Ben. Many judges may be local, but not always. Especially out west, I have known judges from Seattle HJing in SLC. (Not a day trip) And food, of course, is usually a causal function to good judging.
Wizards is doing a great job of replacing players that burnout or quit PTQing. That doesn't mean that PTQ attendance wouldn't be larger if prizes were better; it would.
And your proof of this is...?
Yes: the fact that TOs actually award other prizes. Clearly, they have determined that giving away other prizes is beneficial to them by increasing attendance, otherwise they wouldn't do it. TOs are profit maximizers, ad giving away prizes when its' completely unnecessary is irrational/stupid. They aren't stupid.
That's not data. So far all you've given is your opinion surrounded by a very long winded arguement.
The fact that an increase in prizes (or a reduction in entry fee) would create an increase in attendance.
That's not data. So far all you've given is your opinion surrounded by a very long winded arguement.
Of course it's data. It's a fact that TOs give out other prizes. It's also a fact that TOs are in it to make money. Why would they give out prizes unless they felt they got something out of it?
It is. In the same example you provided that "proves me wrong," included in that long list is "chance to qualify." I spoke erroneously in saying, "only" -- clearly not every person playing at an event can qualify and at least one person in the room must realize they are not the best player and probably do not have what it takes to go undefeated over 8+ rounds/losing only once or drawing into the top 8/what have you. Obviously. Obviously. A literal reading is not even logical, that is my bad, I did not think that you could interperet that as "Not a single person goes to a PTQ with anything else in mind but to win an invitation, 0" -- dealers would not be at events, side events would not run, food would not be consumed, players would not breathe and possibly even die without medical aid under that literal reading. I overestimated you to understand that, I apologize.
The other examples listed, however, in that post are things you can accomplish at every Magic event. Only at a Pro Tour Qualifier can you Qualify for the Pro Tour.
You need to stop saying that, because it's just not true. I've been refuting this claim since the first page. You are being too reductionist, as are tons of other people here. Just because you only play for the invite, doesn't mean other people don't consider other factors relevant.
Okay, since you have refuted my reductionist line of thinking, I will do what you have not when presented with the same, I will revise my original statement:
Very few, if any people, going to a PTQ for the main event play in that main event for reasons that do not include qualifying for the Pro Tour.
This argument is still made on the grounds that you can do every single other thing at other events (FNM, GP, $5k, etc) and, in the case of "acquiring prizes," often you can do it better at those other events, because they are structured in a way where those prizes are the focal point of the event.
Additionally, this is what the company providing these events for you markets these events as -- level-up programs to play in higher level competition, where winning allows you access to the higher level.
What is most important here is that none of these posts you refer to that "refute" me validate your claim that non-qualifier prize is primary on any player's list. Maybe there is a person. Maybe you are the one person in the entire world who is the exception. I cannot say. But as far as all posters in this thread offering comment, the stance of Wizards of the coast, and myself are concerned, they play in a Qualifier to Qualify.
Bottom line steve:
You've damaged your reputation beyond repair. You've alienated yourself from whatever readership you may have had. You're emotionally invested in what could have been a decent discourse, which has led to exacerbating the two previous issues above. Last, but certainly not least, you've damaged whatever cause you're promoting, as your argument is neither concise, clear nor pointed at a single desired outcome.
"Creating competition between TO's" is not a solution. It's some end result that you think is better than the current, but there's really no framework of HOW this would be acheived. Everyone here has expressed why they think that end result has many obstacles and costs, while providing seemingly minimal positive impact on the community.
I honestly hope you contintue to battle people on this, because its simply hilarious. Do you really expect us to suddenly say collectively, "Ohhhhh, now we understand, thanks for the insight Steve, all infinity of us now agree with you, and you're so smart, and have taught me so many things."?
Edit:
Alternatively, you could simply pick this up on yet another internet forum, and start all over.
Have we invented a new word? Is Steve EXACTERBATING?
If there is a new forum that this is happening on, link please.
Have we invented a new word? Is Steve EXACTERBATING?
If there is a new forum that this is happening on, link please.
Did i use Exacerbating incorrectly there? I'm a numbers nerd, wouldn't be surprised if i did. No, not on another forum.... yet, but after he gets kicked off this thread, i'd bet it would take about 3.4 minutes until it pops up elsewhere.
, I will revise my original statement:
Very few, if any people, going to a PTQ for the main event play in that main event for reasons that do not include qualifying for the Pro Tour.
And? That has no bearing on the simple question:
* Would increasing prizes increase attendance?*
My answer is Yes.
Your answer is No.
I will concede, for the sake of argument, that every single attendee at a PTQ has as a reason for attending to compete for the chance to qualify for the Pro Tour.
But conceding that, it in no way follows that increasing prizes won't increase attendance. In fact, we have every reason to think exactly the opposite. You haven't actually once addressed the fact that TOs currently award prizes other than invites . As businesspeople, they wouldn't do that unless it increased attendance or repeat business.
As I said in reply to Kibler:
Secondly, even if the prize payout is – on the front end – the last thing on people’s minds, it doesn’t logically follow that other prizes are irrelevant. For example, if you make top 8, and lose, and walk away with nothing, that could very well create a bad experience, and make a player less likely to attend another PTQ. Thus, even if, following yours and Flores logic, players are either unaware or don’t care about prizes on the front end, that doesn’t mean that they don’t affect or color the overall experience of players at the backend, particularly where it matters, or at least, where I emphasize it matters: retention and retainment.
This argument is still made on the grounds that you can do every single other thing at other events and, in the case of "acquiring prizes," often you can do it better at those other events, because they are structured in a way where those prizes are the focal point of the event.
And my answer is the same as it was before: just because you don't have to do something to create a baseline level of attendance doesn't mean you couldn't do more to create more attendance. By not maximizing attendance in line with what would occur in a competitive system, we are actually hurting Magic's long term growth potential.
What is most important here is that none of these posts you refer to that "refute" me validate your claim that non-qualifier prize is primary on any player's list.
Because I would never say such a thing. That's not my position. My position isn't other prizes are more important than qualifying . That's ridiculous because first prize is the invite. My position is far more modest: it's simply that these other prizes matter, they are relevant.
You are (unintentionally) creating a binary where either these prizes are irrellevant or they are the most important thing of all. The truth is somewhere in between. These other prizes matter (contrary to what Flores, you ,e tc others say), they just don't matter more than the invite.
Did i use Exacerbating incorrectly there? I'm a numbers nerd, wouldn't be surprised if i did. No, not on another forum.... yet, but after he gets kicked off this thread, i'd bet it would take about 3.4 minutes until it pops up elsewhere.
No, you got it right, I just added a 't' to explain what nonobvious 'economic' benefits he might be getting out of it.
You are (unintentionally) creating a binary where either these prizes are irrellevant or they are the most important thing of all. The truth is somewhere in between. These other prizes matter (contrary to what Flores, you ,e tc others say), they just don't matter more than the invite.
NO! This is not what ANYONE is saying. It is not binary. YES STEVE, there is SOME impact from non-qualifying prizes. Are you happy? All of us are stating that the AMOUNT of the impact (see, not binary) is so minimal, that any type of reasonable, affordable, realistic increase in prize support, would/could not provide any of the fruits that you assert it would.
NO! This is not what ANYONE is saying. It is not binary. YES STEVE, there is SOME impact from non-qualifying prizes. Are you happy?
Actually, yes. A number of people still refuse to make this admission.
All of us are stating that the AMOUNT of the impact (see, not binary) is so minimal, that any type of reasonable, affordable, realistic increase in prize support, would/could not provide any of the fruits that you assert it would.
While I appreciate your offer to speak on behalf of other people, many people in this thread have explicitly stated that increasing prizes does not actually increase attendance because the only reason, in their view, people attend PTQs is to qualify.
Moreover, your conclusion that the amount of impact is minimal is an emprical question that would be tested only in a competitive system. Moreover, what's affordable, realistic, etc can only be known if there was a market that could provide this information.
But economic theory suggests, at a minimum, that it would increase attendance by the slop of hte grey triangle I linked to earlier. That's the difference in quantity produced by the difference between Pm and Pc.
Because I would never say such a thing. That's not my position. My position isn't other prizes are more important than qualifying . That's ridiculous because first prize is the invite. My position is far more modest: it's simply that these other prizes matter, they are relevant.
And to return to my position, according to the people who go to PTQs that have posted in this thread, they are not -- they are not factored in as reasons for playing.
You are (unintentionally) creating a binary where either these prizes are irrellevant or they are the most important thing of all. The truth is somewhere in between. These other prizes matter (contrary to what Flores, you ,e tc others say), they just don't matter more than the invite.
I think it is safe to say they do not warrant enough importance to attendees to include them among many repeated posts from many users as listed reasons for why they attend PTQs. I would go far enough to say that they are unimportant, as they are ultimately afterthoughts -- if they are even noted -- in any of the quoted posts, and have not, to this point, been listed as a factor that causes a player to go to a PTQ. To say otherwise is, as I said, just, like, your opinion, man.
To summarize and make for easy quoting: Every player who plays in a PTQ plays to qualify. They may have other reasons for attending that event in addition to trying to qualify (side events, trades, networking, etc). Reasons listed for playing in that main event have not included "that sweet door prize you get if you have 0 Pro Points" or "the box of product I get if I manage to make top 8." The impact of additional, secondary prize, if people self-reporting are to be believed, does not factor into a person's motivation for playing in the event.
To summarize and make for easy quoting: Every player who plays in a PTQ plays to qualify. They may have other reasons for attending that event in addition to trying to qualify (side events, trades, networking, etc). Reasons listed for playing in that main event have not included "that sweet door prize you get if you have 0 Pro Points" or "the box of product I get if I manage to make top 8." Their impact, if people self-reporting are to be believed, does not factor into a person's motivation for playing in the event.
Again, if that were true, then why to TOs, who are profit maximizing, give out product? If it has no impact on attendance, then there is no reason to do so, and yet they do.
Again, you do not believe that increasing prizes increases attendance. Even torerotutor concedes that this is not true.
But economic theory suggests, at a minimum, that it would increase attendance by the slop of hte grey triangle I linked to earlier. That's the difference in quantity produced by the difference between Pm and Pc.
Nice. I actually teach Microeconomics. And while your knowledge of a Supply/Demand graph from a text with reference to Competetion vs Monopolies has been noted, the issue that I have is WHAT IS THAT PROPOSED SLOPE?! Your'e correct, most people here are simplifying their statement. Ultimately, we (and yes, since we're all mostly saying the same thing, i'll be cocky enough to say we) are saying that since there are multiple factors that affect attendance with a greater "slope" (if you want to stay out of real world terms) that we could view the slope of non-qualifying prizes as near zero. Infact, i just quickly counted 3 people that did clarify their statements in this way, after you said something similar to them, and yet you don't respond to these people.
Basically some of the posters may not have knowledge of the terminology you're using, so you abuse them. Some people may be using hyperbole, so you abuse them. Ultimately, we're all communicating the same concept to you, i've tried to be as literal as possible to avoid you side-steppign the actual argument, and focusing on irrelevant semantics. We all are understanding each other, so we clearly are sharing the same message. While some peopels views might be different as far as how those other factors are tiered, NOT ONE PERSON has agreed that non-qualifying prize support would more than slightly increase their likelihood of attending an event, and would be significantly less of an impact than a handful of other factors. If your goal is to grow the game of magic, and the ptq system etc, why not focus on the factors that all of us ptq'ers are saying are more important to us?!
Again, if that were true, then why to TOs, who are profit maximizing, give out product?
As a general rule, people in real life are not actually profit maximizing.
If it has no impact on attendance, then there is no reason to do so, and yet they do.
Increasing prizes from zero to some might have an appreciable impact on attendance. This does not mean that increasing prizes from some to some more will have a similar appreciable impact on attendance.
To answer the question more directly: they likely give out product because everyone else is doing it. They probably figure some players would be upset if they didn't give out any product at all. They probably don't think "If I give out N packs I'll get X players. If I give out M packs I'll get Y players. Let me optimize my pack distribution to maximize my profit!"
Again, if that were true, then why to TOs, who are profit maximizing, give out product? If it has no impact on attendance, then there is no reason to do so, and yet they do.
Again, you do not believe that increasing prizes increases attendance. Even torerotutor concedes that this is not true.
Steve:
Which do you think would lead to A) greater player satisfaction and B) higher tournament attendance?
1) The TO adds $500 in product to the prize pool from where it currently stands,
or
2) The TO is allowed to add a qualification slot and give out a $500 travel voucher if attendance reaches a certain threshold? (For the record:Glen originally suggested 300 players, but I would propose this number to be 200).
TO's are maximizing acceptable prize allocations as outlined in my actual cost outline, based on real and actual business costs. There is little margin for error, and adding even 1 additional pack per player would result in an additional $2850 in costs (using my example, 150 (players) * 9 (events) =1350 packs /36 (packs per box) =37.5 boxes * 76 = 2850. This would drop their profit margin to far slimmer levels than most any business believes to be acceptable.
Therefore, TO's are not gouging the players, but providing them with prizes as possible without exposing themselves to undue risk.
So, while increased prize support MAY increase attendance, it doesn't do so in a manner that is neither a) capable of being supported given current operating parameters, nor b) necessarily guaranteed to improve any of the attributes you seek to improve.
Furthermore, as I stated previously, the risks appear to be far more grave than the minimal to nonexistent reward.
For many years Wizards of the Coast offered amateur awards at PTQs. To receive one you could not have a Pro Point. How the boosters were awarded was left to the local organizer. In fact, many organizers were quite creative with those awards. Each PTQ regardless of size got 72 additional boosters.
My suggestion to you Stephan would be discover the date those prizes were added, review attendance. Up down static? Then review the removal of those prizes again looking for changes doing as much as you can to account for changes which you alone deem material.
I've done this already. I know, yes-from my perspective, that answer. I could go on for hours about what I think does materially affect PTQ attendance, oh wait I already did.
No organizer owes you this answer, if you want it bad enough the data is in the public domain. Go get it tiger!
500 players in MODO isn't equivalent to real-world PTQs primarily because we're talking about a global pool of players.
If the wizards model is successful, then are you of the opinion that nothing is wrong with the PTQ system? "If it ain't broke, don't fix it?" That sort of thing?
Check out the blog too.
Nope, you're right on.
(Disclosure: I operate a VERY small game stroe in my hometown. we are open two nights a week. Thus, some of my costs are perfectly accurate)
From the Top! (apologies to GerryT)
1. Every constructed PTQ I have gone to is $25, while every sealed has been $30.
2. Cost of Product is inaccurate. Unless you are buying ridiculous volume, (>$25,000 per quarter) you generally pay about 53% of retail, or $76.12 per box. We'll round down, even though the distributor won't. ; )
3. Attendance is rarely 200. As pointed out previously, only a handful hit 200 or more. I don't have an actual average attendance number (If someone does, awesome) but closer to 150 seems correct. yes, this varies based on season and area, but I feel is certainly more accurate than 200.
4. Missing overhead costs. Taxes, business licensing, equipment, etc. Some states require sales Tax be paid on events and services, some don't. You are required to have a business license in order to purchase from distributors. Costs on that vary widely based on location. We'll tackle more specifics later.
So, let's run some numbers for a PTO running 9 PTQs a year (3 per season)
Revenue: Event 1, constructed, 3750 in revenue, x3 = 11250 for season 1.
Event 2, also Constructed, same.
Event 3, sealed, 4500 revenue , 13500 for the season. Total revenue for the year: $36,000
Product required for non-prize use (compensation, sealed product, etc.)
4 staff per event seems acceptable, except sealed, where you'll probably want 5. Total 12+ 12+ 15= 39. for 150 players, you need 25 boxes per sealed event. That's 75 boxes for the season.
114 boxes *76 = 8664 in non-prize product required.
Location costs
You assign $1000 here, which seems fair.
cost $9000
Equipment: I'm assuming most of these TO's run these out of a home office, and are not renting an office suite. Nonetheless, they probably have real jobs, and I wouldn't want the product left on my doorstep all day while I'm working. Personally, my store uses a UPS box for shipping, as it's secure and they will hold the shipment for a few days if I get behind. It runs $120 for a year. A new laptop every year, which seems feasible to continue to run tournaments, is about $1000, as a ballpark. Similarly, a new Printer $100 a year. Gas is varied, if you live out east it's probably less, the west, more. We'll assume it's minimal ($5) for one of the three, and more ($50) for the other 2. Assume 2 of the 3 are $10 parking, the third free. Throw in an oil change (since we're driving close to 3000 miles for the year just in events) at $30, and our travel costs are $125 per season, $375 + 25 = $400 in travel costs per year. Ink, pens, tape, paper, and other costs are probably pretty reasonable, let's assume $50 per event average. It could be lower for constructed, higher for sealed, but I'm comfortable with this average. $450 in misc. The last cost would be a business license, and to be honest, I have no clue. Living in a small town, and having no actual employees, I don't have to do anything but register. Other locales may be drastically different. Additionally, sales tax could be an issue. I know Nebraska charges a 5% tax on services. Oregon, on the other hand, has no sales tax. Another mystery. Total Miscellaneous $2070
So, we have revenue of $36,000, and costs (with no prizes) of $19,734, not counting potential licensing and tax costs.
Smennen seems to believe 3 packs per player in prizes is pretty standard math, as illustrated in the OP. That's 450 packs per event, or 12.5 boxes. Round that up to 13, and we have 117 more boxes, which is another $8,892 for prizes. Meaning, that for a year of normal, current prizes, we have total revenue of $36,000 and costs estimated at $28,626, leaving a profit of $7,374 per year, not including taxes and licensing. That's approximately $819 per event, and given the expected 25+ hours of work expected for each event (arrangements, travel, the actual event, etc.) means a wage of somewhere in the area of $30+ per hour.
This may seem like a very nice wage, but the TO's are also taking very large risks. One terrible turnout could easily decimate a years worth of profits. Snowstorm in Denver, turnout is now 83 for sealed. That's over $2000 in revenue lost. I could envision a bad format ruining an entire season. Considering that TO's are placing a lot of money into it up front, they certainly deserve a decent profit for the year. It's certainly a far cry from the massive profits Smennen is envisioning.
You should read them.
"Rejoice, for bad things are about to happen"
Smennen talks about demand curves and multiple factors a lot. But at no point has he shown the slope of those curves, or the weight of those factors. If making the prize payout $1,000,000 tripled the PTQ attendance, it would simply be not worth it. And that's what the people who actually attend PTQs are saying - the prize payout, other than the invite, matters so little that you would have to multiply the prize payout just to get a handful more people playing. This is what inelastic demand is - a small response to a significant price change. And since people are not perfect rational agents, there is a threshold below which "small slope" or "small factor weight" is identical to "zero slope" or "zero factor weight". This is why people say "I don't go for the prize payout" - because it falls below their evaluation threshold and thus has no effect on the rational process used to determine if they're going to go to a PTQ.
If you think that the weight of the factor doesn't matter, then it wouldn't matter what form the factor takes. The TO could offer jewelry instead of packs. Would it increase attendance if you could win a 2-carat diamond ring? Yes, it would. And it would be ridiculously inefficient in terms of number of players acquired for the cost.
As a side note, Smennen's comparison to the housing bubble is either simply a poor analogy or an actual misunderstanding of what happened in the housing bubble, in particular his insistence that he's not saying the system is broken right now. In the housing bubble, the system was broken long before the bubble burst. If you're comparing PTQs to that, you are saying that they're actually currently broken.
This just. isn't. true.
While many people have stated that they play in PTQs for other reason, it only takes one example to prove you wrong, so I'll give you an example from this thread.
Let me break it down. Reasons he cited for playing in PTQS?
1) gameplay and fun, 2) trades/pick up gaemes, 3) a chance at an invite, 4) to test his skills against top competition.
He mentioned THREE Other reasons for playing in PTQs. So much for your claim that PTQ "only play to make it to the larger event.'
You need to stop saying that, because it's just not true. I've been refuting this claim since the first page. You are being too reductionist, as are tons of other people here. Just because you only play for the invite, doesn't mean other people don't consider other factors relevant.
Moreover, regarding your point about how people self-reflect, of COURSE people want the best possible prize, but that doesn't make other prizes irrellevant! It doesn't logically follow from what you said that other prizes don't also act as an incentive to attend! But that's exactly what you are saying.
Except that we have examples that disprove your point. Qualifying is a reason to attend, and it's an important one, but it's far from the only one. In fact, I know people who've attended PTQs just to pick up a few points. From my experience, I certainly did not just attend PTQs to qualify, but to have fun and to compete, and see how my innovations fared.
Nor did I say it was. Wizards is doing a great job of replacing players that burnout or quit PTQing. That doesn't mean that PTQ attendance wouldn't be larger if prizes were better; it would.
Yes: the fact that TOs actually award other prizes. Clearly, they have determined that giving away other prizes is beneficial to them by increasing attendance, otherwise they wouldn't do it. TOs are profit maximizers, ad giving away prizes when its' completely unnecessary is irrational/stupid. They aren't stupid.
Jeff:
I still think you are missing some primary costs here.
In both your and Steve's examples, there seems to be the assumption that all judges and staff members should starve during a 12-14 hour event, and that all judges and staff members should sleep in their cars both the day before and the day after an event, if there is travel time to/from the venue.
- Ben Bleiweiss
Right, as I said... Online and IRL PTQs are not the same, but idealized examples where overhead, organizer issues (delays between rounds! printing sheets for pairings! repair!), and the like are removed from the equation.
Add in that despite global play, not everyone who plays on MODO plays competitively, wants to qualify, has the time, etc, for the PTQ, not everyone has the cards (in the case of Constructed events) -- all the same as IRL. On a good day, for example, about 3 Standard Daily Events will fire, which, Standard season permitting, will have anywhere from 16-50+ players. That's GLOBALLY. Numbers comparable anywhere from your local FNM to a very-well-populated local weekend tourney occur on a global scale on a given day.
While they are not the same thing, outside information like that does make you think. But, to repeat, they're not the same thing, and you could just be getting all of the people who would be playing in Podunk that day as you would in Hokkaido as you would in Pairs all at the same time in one place Online, plus XXxxxDRAGONsCaLeZxxxXX and 56 of his 8-man grinder buddies, whereas those numbers would be far fewer per PTQ if they all held events on the same day in their respective locations.
Are there any annual dues that must be paid to Wizards/the DCI for tournament hosting and the like? I don't remember such costs being mentioned or even listed between examples, even if they are negligible.
Buy from me on TCGPlayer::Twitter::Flickr
Oh, you said this many times before? That must mean you're correct.
Simply asserting the same point repeatedly does not make it correct, nor make you argument seem any less flimsy.
You keep just re-posting and re-posting the same quotes of your same arguments. WE'VE READ THEM! We disagree, and have stated our reasoning. I'll be honest, I've replied to a handful of your comments, and you simply ignore them. You state your frustration with the "trolling", but yet you only respond to those who are insulting you.
Bottom line steve:
You've damaged your reputation beyond repair. You've alienated yourself from whatever readership you may have had. You're emotionally invested in what could have been a decent discourse, which has led to exacerbating the two previous issues above. Last, but certainly not least, you've damaged whatever cause you're promoting, as your argument is neither concise, clear nor pointed at a single desired outcome.
"Creating competition between TO's" is not a solution. It's some end result that you think is better than the current, but there's really no framework of HOW this would be acheived. Everyone here has expressed why they think that end result has many obstacles and costs, while providing seemingly minimal positive impact on the community.
I honestly hope you contintue to battle people on this, because its simply hilarious. Do you really expect us to suddenly say collectively, "Ohhhhh, now we understand, thanks for the insight Steve, all infinity of us now agree with you, and you're so smart, and have taught me so many things."?
Edit:
Alternatively, you could simply pick this up on yet another internet forum, and start all over.
You needy TO's and judges, always wanting rest and nourishment. Obviously, you must barter your box of product for Slim Jims and a refrigerator box.
I was going off the Sroog-ian notion that travel to and from could possibly be done same-day, and that food wouldn't be comped. A reasonable human being would include those, but since we're trying to paint TO's a heartless, soulless robots... (that's a joke, before Smennen gets all ad hominem-y on me. You can include jokes and not be trolling, you know.)
Thanks for the additional input, Ben. Many judges may be local, but not always. Especially out west, I have known judges from Seattle HJing in SLC. (Not a day trip) And food, of course, is usually a causal function to good judging.
You should read them.
"Rejoice, for bad things are about to happen"
And your proof of this is...?
That's not data. So far all you've given is your opinion surrounded by a very long winded arguement.
The fact that an increase in prizes (or a reduction in entry fee) would create an increase in attendance.
Of course it's data. It's a fact that TOs give out other prizes. It's also a fact that TOs are in it to make money. Why would they give out prizes unless they felt they got something out of it?
It is. In the same example you provided that "proves me wrong," included in that long list is "chance to qualify." I spoke erroneously in saying, "only" -- clearly not every person playing at an event can qualify and at least one person in the room must realize they are not the best player and probably do not have what it takes to go undefeated over 8+ rounds/losing only once or drawing into the top 8/what have you. Obviously. Obviously. A literal reading is not even logical, that is my bad, I did not think that you could interperet that as "Not a single person goes to a PTQ with anything else in mind but to win an invitation, 0" -- dealers would not be at events, side events would not run, food would not be consumed, players would not breathe and possibly even die without medical aid under that literal reading. I overestimated you to understand that, I apologize.
The other examples listed, however, in that post are things you can accomplish at every Magic event. Only at a Pro Tour Qualifier can you Qualify for the Pro Tour.
You're right! But you know what I don't see among those qualifiers for going to a PTQ? Non-qualifier prizes. Boo.
Okay, since you have refuted my reductionist line of thinking, I will do what you have not when presented with the same, I will revise my original statement:
Very few, if any people, going to a PTQ for the main event play in that main event for reasons that do not include qualifying for the Pro Tour.
This argument is still made on the grounds that you can do every single other thing at other events (FNM, GP, $5k, etc) and, in the case of "acquiring prizes," often you can do it better at those other events, because they are structured in a way where those prizes are the focal point of the event.
Additionally, this is what the company providing these events for you markets these events as -- level-up programs to play in higher level competition, where winning allows you access to the higher level.
What is most important here is that none of these posts you refer to that "refute" me validate your claim that non-qualifier prize is primary on any player's list. Maybe there is a person. Maybe you are the one person in the entire world who is the exception. I cannot say. But as far as all posters in this thread offering comment, the stance of Wizards of the coast, and myself are concerned, they play in a Qualifier to Qualify.
Buy from me on TCGPlayer::Twitter::Flickr
Have we invented a new word? Is Steve EXACTERBATING?
If there is a new forum that this is happening on, link please.
Did i use Exacerbating incorrectly there? I'm a numbers nerd, wouldn't be surprised if i did. No, not on another forum.... yet, but after he gets kicked off this thread, i'd bet it would take about 3.4 minutes until it pops up elsewhere.
And? That has no bearing on the simple question:
* Would increasing prizes increase attendance?*
My answer is Yes.
Your answer is No.
I will concede, for the sake of argument, that every single attendee at a PTQ has as a reason for attending to compete for the chance to qualify for the Pro Tour.
But conceding that, it in no way follows that increasing prizes won't increase attendance. In fact, we have every reason to think exactly the opposite. You haven't actually once addressed the fact that TOs currently award prizes other than invites . As businesspeople, they wouldn't do that unless it increased attendance or repeat business.
As I said in reply to Kibler:
And my answer is the same as it was before: just because you don't have to do something to create a baseline level of attendance doesn't mean you couldn't do more to create more attendance. By not maximizing attendance in line with what would occur in a competitive system, we are actually hurting Magic's long term growth potential.
Because I would never say such a thing. That's not my position. My position isn't other prizes are more important than qualifying . That's ridiculous because first prize is the invite. My position is far more modest: it's simply that these other prizes matter, they are relevant.
You are (unintentionally) creating a binary where either these prizes are irrellevant or they are the most important thing of all. The truth is somewhere in between. These other prizes matter (contrary to what Flores, you ,e tc others say), they just don't matter more than the invite.
No, you got it right, I just added a 't' to explain what nonobvious 'economic' benefits he might be getting out of it.
NO! This is not what ANYONE is saying. It is not binary. YES STEVE, there is SOME impact from non-qualifying prizes. Are you happy? All of us are stating that the AMOUNT of the impact (see, not binary) is so minimal, that any type of reasonable, affordable, realistic increase in prize support, would/could not provide any of the fruits that you assert it would.
Actually, yes. A number of people still refuse to make this admission.
While I appreciate your offer to speak on behalf of other people, many people in this thread have explicitly stated that increasing prizes does not actually increase attendance because the only reason, in their view, people attend PTQs is to qualify.
Moreover, your conclusion that the amount of impact is minimal is an emprical question that would be tested only in a competitive system. Moreover, what's affordable, realistic, etc can only be known if there was a market that could provide this information.
But economic theory suggests, at a minimum, that it would increase attendance by the slop of hte grey triangle I linked to earlier. That's the difference in quantity produced by the difference between Pm and Pc.
And to return to my position, according to the people who go to PTQs that have posted in this thread, they are not -- they are not factored in as reasons for playing.
I think it is safe to say they do not warrant enough importance to attendees to include them among many repeated posts from many users as listed reasons for why they attend PTQs. I would go far enough to say that they are unimportant, as they are ultimately afterthoughts -- if they are even noted -- in any of the quoted posts, and have not, to this point, been listed as a factor that causes a player to go to a PTQ. To say otherwise is, as I said, just, like, your opinion, man.
To summarize and make for easy quoting: Every player who plays in a PTQ plays to qualify. They may have other reasons for attending that event in addition to trying to qualify (side events, trades, networking, etc). Reasons listed for playing in that main event have not included "that sweet door prize you get if you have 0 Pro Points" or "the box of product I get if I manage to make top 8." The impact of additional, secondary prize, if people self-reporting are to be believed, does not factor into a person's motivation for playing in the event.
Buy from me on TCGPlayer::Twitter::Flickr
Again, if that were true, then why to TOs, who are profit maximizing, give out product? If it has no impact on attendance, then there is no reason to do so, and yet they do.
Again, you do not believe that increasing prizes increases attendance. Even torerotutor concedes that this is not true.
Nice. I actually teach Microeconomics. And while your knowledge of a Supply/Demand graph from a text with reference to Competetion vs Monopolies has been noted, the issue that I have is WHAT IS THAT PROPOSED SLOPE?! Your'e correct, most people here are simplifying their statement. Ultimately, we (and yes, since we're all mostly saying the same thing, i'll be cocky enough to say we) are saying that since there are multiple factors that affect attendance with a greater "slope" (if you want to stay out of real world terms) that we could view the slope of non-qualifying prizes as near zero. Infact, i just quickly counted 3 people that did clarify their statements in this way, after you said something similar to them, and yet you don't respond to these people.
Basically some of the posters may not have knowledge of the terminology you're using, so you abuse them. Some people may be using hyperbole, so you abuse them. Ultimately, we're all communicating the same concept to you, i've tried to be as literal as possible to avoid you side-steppign the actual argument, and focusing on irrelevant semantics. We all are understanding each other, so we clearly are sharing the same message. While some peopels views might be different as far as how those other factors are tiered, NOT ONE PERSON has agreed that non-qualifying prize support would more than slightly increase their likelihood of attending an event, and would be significantly less of an impact than a handful of other factors. If your goal is to grow the game of magic, and the ptq system etc, why not focus on the factors that all of us ptq'ers are saying are more important to us?!
To answer the question more directly: they likely give out product because everyone else is doing it. They probably figure some players would be upset if they didn't give out any product at all. They probably don't think "If I give out N packs I'll get X players. If I give out M packs I'll get Y players. Let me optimize my pack distribution to maximize my profit!"
Steve:
Which do you think would lead to A) greater player satisfaction and B) higher tournament attendance?
1) The TO adds $500 in product to the prize pool from where it currently stands,
or
2) The TO is allowed to add a qualification slot and give out a $500 travel voucher if attendance reaches a certain threshold? (For the record:Glen originally suggested 300 players, but I would propose this number to be 200).
- Ben Bleiweiss
TO's are maximizing acceptable prize allocations as outlined in my actual cost outline, based on real and actual business costs. There is little margin for error, and adding even 1 additional pack per player would result in an additional $2850 in costs (using my example, 150 (players) * 9 (events) =1350 packs /36 (packs per box) =37.5 boxes * 76 = 2850. This would drop their profit margin to far slimmer levels than most any business believes to be acceptable.
Therefore, TO's are not gouging the players, but providing them with prizes as possible without exposing themselves to undue risk.
So, while increased prize support MAY increase attendance, it doesn't do so in a manner that is neither a) capable of being supported given current operating parameters, nor b) necessarily guaranteed to improve any of the attributes you seek to improve.
Furthermore, as I stated previously, the risks appear to be far more grave than the minimal to nonexistent reward.
You should read them.
"Rejoice, for bad things are about to happen"