ABCs of Attack and Defense (Beta copies)

[Bonobo]

Meanwhile I wonder, BTW, whether and how it would have been discussed here, and what price S&S would get, had they offered those books on eBay with the same description as in the mail cited in the OP …

And …

but I’m happy to get my copy already.

$35 is now market price.

Yes, but if there only are perhaps 12 copies, and if I’m ordering two (one for me and one for the other German guy), then there are ten left. And they won’t be there for long. And then there won’t be any. Except for those on eBay and Amazon for $60 and $150, etc.

But I’m not really into speculating with such things. Just happy to get my copy, with no intentions of re-selling it.

[lemmata]

My issue is this mainly. I used the term "price gouging" because, well, increasing the price dramatically when supply is short and demand is high is price gouging.

This seems like a very subjective definition. "Short" and "High" as you are using them have no quantitative basis. Let me put on my economics professor hat here. In a classical sense, price gouging involves using the firm's market power to artificially restrict supply. In this case, all costs are costs are sunk and no new quantities can be produced so the firm itself is not restricting supply. The firm could restrict supply if it was withholding part of its already small inventory from the market to maximize revenue, but that's ridiculous. As John F. mentioned, a box of Slate & Shell books is not a significant quantity at all. The capacity constraint is so severe that, even if S&S tried to exercise this nonexistent monopoly power (as I mentioned, there are many close substitutes available) it would do worse if it tried to artificially restrict quantity below the capacity constraint by "jacking" prices. Price gouging would actually be less profitable than charging market price!

Reference diagram:

basic.png (7.86 KiB) Viewed 13690 times

If Slate and Shell can sell their entire inventory at $35, then is someone who is willing to pay only $5 for the book more deserving of the limited quantity than someone who is willing to pay $35?

Are you implying that being willing to pay more means someone is more deserving? Because peoples' economic situations vary so much that that's just nonsensical.

I asked if you are more deserving. I did not say that you were less deserving. The opposite of "more" is "not more". "Not more" is not the same as "less". The key point here is that there is no moral judgment to be made for either side. In that case, social welfare is the most commonly used criterion for the allocation of resources. Social welfare is greater if the book goes to someone who values it more highly.

But the reason I described their pricing as jacked up is because they have jacked up the price. They're selling an incomplete version of the book for significantly more than the full version retailed for, which is reasonable given that the demand outweighs their supply, but whichever way you look at it those are still jacked up prices.

Again, as others have point out, this book is the full book. It seems to me that S&S made a major marketing mistake when they referred to this book as a "beta" version. A "beta" as the term is used in the real world refers to pre-releases that are missing features or have more bugs than the retail version. This is more like a batch of products that do not include the company's logo sticker. This book is not a "beta" as most people understand it, even if S&S decided to market it that way. Moreover, saying that A is true because A is true is not really convincing. There is not a single bit of objective argument in here. "Demand outweighs supply" is a nonsensical statement unless we are talking about a particular price. We can only say that demand outweighs supply at price $x/unit. Even in the extreme case of a monopoly (!!) market (in which there is actual objective price gouging, rather than purely subjective imagined ones), demand does not outweigh supply [I mean quantities demanded and supplied, but that distinction need not be made in informal speech] at the monopoly price. The exercise of market power from artificially restricting the quantity supplied to affect the price. John F. has said that a carton of S&S books contains about a dozen copies. With so few copies available, I think we can easily imagine the books selling out at this price. Then S&S hasn't flexed its market power over this book. As I mentioned, it isn't even profitable for them to "price-gouge" (in the objective sense of exercising market power) when the quantity constraint is so severe. If anything, after hearing from John F. and tchan, it seems that Slate and Shell has under-priced book.

There is a lot of "I think that $x is the fair price for me and $35 is too far beyond what I am personally willing to pay so this is price gouging" type of argument going on. The economic terms being sprinkled in are not being used in the sense they are used in economics proper and are being misused in folk economics arguments devoid of rigor.

Again, the worst anyone can say about Slate & Shell is that they misjudged market demand. Even that, we can only say if they somehow don't sell out at this price.

What's with all the animosity directed at S&S? If anything, I can only feel respect and sympathy for them in a world where many of their books are being illegally circulated in PDF form. The profitability of their business venture is highly questionable. We're essentially berating a mom & pop size operation for setting a price that is probably low enough to sell out and then some because we have judged their price to be subjectively unfair in ways that depend on our own subjective valuations. I really hope that the proprietors of S&S are not reading this thread. It just makes me incredibly sad.

[Boidhre]

Gouging, sorry, that's been bothering me for a bit and I hate nitpicking people's spelling!

Yeah, fair point.

Yet you just did nitpick and you seem to be in such agony over it.
This being right after you just used Price Gouging out of context...
Now you are being delusional about what defines market pricing.

Look, I'm wrecked and yeah it was petty of me to nitpick his spelling but drop the personal detritus please, I haven't gone around calling people delusional because I think they're utterly wrong and I'd appreciate the same.

Market prices being defined by sale prices in a market that is extremely low volume or no volume is not sound. The lower the volume the higher the uncertainty as to whether the price is correct in the economic sense and the less weight you will attach to it. When there are four or five books being offered with prices varying wildly and no obvious sales activity going on, calling the average of them the market price is very, very suspect. Market price is simply the sale price of a good only if there is actual selling going on, when you get into out of print collector's books and similar you cannot apply concepts like market price very easily to the resultant markets, mainly due to volume.

[Boidhre]

My issue is this mainly. I used the term "price gouging" because, well, increasing the price dramatically when supply is short and demand is high is price gouging.

This seems like a very subjective definition.

Yes. It is. Just as thinking $35 is too high is very subjective, or that it's a fair price is subjective. This is a very subjective debate, none of us have access to good data on sales of go books, never mind sales of a found collection of out-of-print books so it can hardly be very objective.

As for folk economics. What do you expect? We both know what academic economics looks like and this forum doesn't have LaTeX support last time I checked. More seriously, given a dearth of data, we couldn't have a serious economic conversation about this anyway no? The discussion about the price isn't really an economic one anyway, even if there are economic terms sprinkled about, it's about what people think the price should be which isn't going to give you any rigor, since again, there's little data to argue off of here since it's an odd good, being out of print but the publisher found a few.

[tchan001]

Market prices being defined by sale prices in a market that is extremely low volume or no volume is not sound. The lower the volume the higher the uncertainty as to whether the price is correct in the economic sense and the less weight you will attach to it. When there are four or five books being offered with prices varying wildly and no obvious sales activity going on, calling the average of them the market price is very, very suspect. Market price is simply the sale price of a good only if there is actual selling going on, when you get into out of print collector's books and similar you cannot apply concepts like market price very easily to the resultant markets, mainly due to volume.

The market price for low volume items is the last price paid for the item between a willing seller and a willing buyer. That's the only price you can base it on. Whether it is sound is not the point because there is such a scarcity of the resource in low volume items. What you can say is that when there is a scarcity of resource, the market price can gyrate wildly, but the reference point is always the last price paid for the item between a willing seller and a willing buyer.

If you look at the stock market at very inactive stocks, the market price is the last price paid. That doesn't mean the next price paid is the same price, but you do need a reference point when you talk about market price.

You can speculate all you want about what the market price should be, but the market price is set by someone's wallet not just talk.

When you talk about rare out of print go books, the collector will always set the market price out of bound of normal folks because they are willing to pay more for copies that show up on the market. Have you ever waited years to get a book you've always wanted because it's so rare? That's what collectors do and when several want the same rare book, the prices jump up quickly. Which is why for very valuable unique items which many people want, the best way to set the market price is via an auction.

Bonobo has set the market price for the beta version when he made a purchase. And if you compare the market price for the beta copies at $35 with the market price of the rare out-of-print final copies, S&S is offering a bargain.

What many people are actually talking about here is not the market price but the market value they would place on the book if they were to be a willing buyer.

[Boidhre]

The market price for low volume items is the last price paid for the item between a willing seller and a willing buyer. That's the only price you can base it on. Whether it is sound is not the point because there is such a scarcity of the resource in low volume items. What you can say is that when there is a scarcity of resource, the market price can gyrate wildly, but the reference point is always the last price paid for the item between a willing seller and a willing buyer.

If you look at the stock market at very inactive stocks, the market price is the last price paid. That doesn't mean the next price paid is the same price, but you do need a reference point when you talk about market price.

When you talk about rare out of print go books, the collector will always set the market price out of bound of normal folks because they are willing to pay more for copies that show up on the market. Have you ever waited years to get a book you've always wanted because it's so rare? That's what collectors do and when several want the same rare book, the prices jump up quickly. Which is why for very valuable unique items which many people want, the best way to set the market price is via an auction.

Bonobo has set the market price for the beta version when he made a purchase. And if you compare the market price for the beta copies at $35 with the market price of the rare out-of-print final copies, S&S is offering a bargain.

Whether it's sound is rather important if you're going to use it as a basis to judge the value of another price. Market price isn't static, I'm not arguing that, my point is that it loses most of its use as a concept once volume is low enough and prices volatile enough. Which the second hand market for most go books would qualify for. Using it as if it was coming from a market with plenty of volume is quite problematic.



Off Topic: I apologise for my tone in previous posts if it has grated on people. I'm tired, depressed and unreasonably irritable with the world and the latter is probably coming through too much in my posts despite my efforts to tone down what's going through my head. If I annoyed you, sorry it wasn't my intention. Also, I notice upon rereading that I've dropped some pretty important bits here and there from what I was saying, which may contribute to the nonsensical seeming nature of my posts. Sorry, my concentration is fairly shot.

On Topic: I withdraw the price gouging comment, it's been interpreted quite differently to what I had intended it to mean and was a poor choice of words on my part.

[snorri]

Wow. What an argument!

I'm trying to remember if I've ever stopped patronizing someone in the Go World and why. I stopped buying stuff from people who went out of business, but that's not my choice. I guess I don't buy nice equipment, but it's not because I have a dispute with the vendors' pricing. It's more like my lifestyle does not include respectable people visiting my home to play go, and I wouldn't buy that stuff just for myself.

I didn't necessarily stop patronizing Alexander Dinerstein 1p when I noticed he was selling trick moves by the move on some website (probably defunct). I thought that was in poor taste, but I guess that's his business if we wants to do that. Heck, I even bought Moyo Go Studio even though it was pretty clear the author had some...well, "issues" and wasn't exactly a friend of the go community.

I guess what I'm saying is a vendor probably has to be pretty darn evil for me to use market power against them if they haven't offended me directly. The occasional overpriced item that I don't have to buy---and almost every store on the planet has something like that---doesn't register on my radar.

Now, there are things I don't understand. I don't understand the popularity of Olive Garden, for example. But I'm not going to use fighting words over something like that.

There's an analogy I have that might be apt. Some years ago (I guess it was 2008) I was installing Linux on a machine for my wife. The conversation went something like this:

Me: What kind of partitioning to you want?
Her: Whatever you think, but at least X% of swap. And a big /var...
Me: Filesystem?
Her: ReiserFS
Me: I'm not sure how to say this, but...
Her (interrupting): Yes, I want the filesystem written by the convicted wife-killer.¹
Me: Any reason why?
Her: I assume he'll have plenty of time in prison to make fixes.²
Me: Works for me.

--
[1] Hans Reiser
[2] In retrospect, an optimistic prediction. However, the system did run without glitches, so...

[kusto]

Look, I'm wrecked and yeah it was petty of me to nitpick his spelling but drop the personal detritus please, I haven't gone around calling people delusional because I think they're utterly wrong and I'd appreciate the same.

Delusional, is to mean having false or unrealistic beliefs or opinions. Which in this case sounded quite appropriate to me as the market price is simply the current price at which an asset or service can be bought or sold. And seeing as S&S's is the cheapest on the market, it is overtly obvious that it is currently the market price.

Boidhre i am sorry to hear that you are suffering from depression. But try to remember the damage threads like this can cause towards small businesses. If you felt strongly enough about the price increase, you could have even contacted them through email to ask what their reasons were for setting a higher price - maybe they are struggling monetarily.

My point harkens back to Johns post about considering people who contribute to the go scene as friends. The scene is small enough to be personal, you aren't just a number if you don't want to be. If you take the time for people to understand where they come from, it will be easier to relate to them and understand their reasoning.

[Boidhre]

Look, I'm wrecked and yeah it was petty of me to nitpick his spelling but drop the personal detritus please, I haven't gone around calling people delusional because I think they're utterly wrong and I'd appreciate the same.

Delusional, is to mean having false or unrealistic beliefs or opinions. Which in this case sounded quite appropriate to me as the market price is simply the current price at which an asset or service can be bought or sold. And seeing as S&S's is the cheapest on the market, it is overtly obvious that it is currently the market price.

Boidhre i am sorry to hear that you are suffering from depression. But try to remember the damage threads like this can cause towards small businesses. If you felt strongly enough about the price increase, you could have even contacted them through email to ask what their reasons were for setting a higher price - maybe they are struggling monetarily.

My point harkens back to Johns post about considering people who contribute to the go scene as friends. The scene is small enough to be personal, you aren't just a number if you don't want to be. If you take the time for people to understand where they come from, it will be easier to relate to them and understand their reasoning.

Delusional is used an insult here. When speaking to someone open about their mental health in the community it's considered an extremely personal dig usually carrying implications that they are ill at the moment. I didn't read that way from you or thought that it was your meaning but I don't want to read that kind of thing aimed at me as its upsetting to read even when I think the comment was made innocuously. Feel free to call me an idiot, muppet or gombeen, these don't actually get under my skin.


I understand the friends thing all too well, I've friends and family in niche creative industries and realise how many people in them think. I just don't think that way and never have when it comes to the distribution and storefront sides of these things. The writer fine, the editor no, the publisher almost never and the bookseller, sorry if that can't be thought of as a business I'm not sure what can. I accept high book prices in go usually because I appreciate the market conditions render cheap go books on anything other than very new beginner level to be impossible. I still don't think that people can't say "I think they're overcharging here." I mean, really, I buy S&S books fairly regularly, mostly through SmartGo Books but also in paperback. I like what they've published that I've seen. I think people should vote with their wallet here in that, if they think this book is too expensive they shouldn't buy it. I don't think they should boycott S&S because it's both massively out of proportion in terms of reaction and quite silly given how few go books get published this year.

Negative feedback is damaging sure, but it's necessary. Allowing only positive and neutral things to be said would be absurd. I agree that it can get out of hand though and people can take it too far, perhaps I did that here, I don't know.

[daal]

My feeling in this thread, however, is not that the price is disputed, but that the motivation of the sellers is disputed, or even projected - and without much reason other than 'I don't like the price.'

Sure. Seeing what appeared to be a $22 product being sold for $35 caused me to raise my questioning eyebrow. Appearances can be deceiving, and in this case they may have been. Part of this appearance was suggested by the initial email from S&S:

As we are not planning on reprinting the later format right now, this may be your only opportunity outside of ebay to acquire the book.

The "not planning" in this sentence gave me the impression that they were simply choosing not to do so, giving the appearance that they themselves are responsible for the dearth of these books. Why no new printings? Probably because reprinting would not be worth their while. Apparently, their assumption is that there is not a high demand for these books.

I admit that I was jumping to conclusions, but the impression that I got from the email was that by cleverly discovering this box, the opportunity arose to turn "discarded" books into collector's items. This seemed manipulative, as it appeared that they were the ones limiting the supply, and thus artificially creating a demand. I'm still not sure that this is not the case. Even if there are licensing fees etc., is it not a choice based on the economic viability to not print them?

Be that as it may, S&S as a small business, and they have every right to ask whatever price they want for their wares. Actually, it probably would have been far more profitable for them to have marketed them as collector's items on ebay. They might in fact have opted to sell the books for less than they could have got. If people feel they are too expensive, tough do-do. I think i-phones are too expensive and I'm also miffed that I don't have one.

The question remains for me, are the critical reactions to the price something indecent? John F suggests that we should see S&S more as our peers and less as our dealers, and that our reactions have been lacking in tact. I doubt that many would have been so bold to say to S&S's face (I personally don't know who they are) that they were being somehow underhanded, but on the internet, where many of us seem to write mainly in order to see our voices in print, the criticisms here in this thread can easily be taken with a grain or two of salt. No one has even compared them to Hitler.

This box was difficult for S&S to market diplomatically, but I'm not sure how they could have done a better job. Although they did get off on the wrong foot, it really doesn't seem like much of a big deal.

[daal]

Sale prices are what set it not what delusional listings booksellers with no connection to go can come up with.

Now you are being delusional about what defines market pricing.

Look, I'm wrecked and yeah it was petty of me to nitpick his spelling but drop the personal detritus please, I haven't gone around calling people delusional because I think they're utterly wrong and I'd appreciate the same.

Delusional, is to mean having false or unrealistic beliefs or opinions. Which in this case sounded quite appropriate to me as the market price is simply the current price at which an asset or service can be bought or sold. And seeing as S&S's is the cheapest on the market, it is overtly obvious that it is currently the market price.

Just a word about delusional here - you two are not talking about the same thing: Boidhre was referring to the ebay and amazon sellers who may have no contact with the go world, and who indeed at times try to sell books for prices that no one will pay.

[wineandgolover]

I'm really hoping for a Bill Cobb post saying something to the effect of, "interesting thread, but academic now, as the book has sold out. Thank you for your patronage."

[gogameguru]

This is a great book. Probably single digit kyu to low dan players will get the most out of it. I think it's worth getting if you have the money.

I've lent my old copy to a friend. Didn't know it was out of print!

[hyperpape]

My feeling in this thread, however, is not that the price is disputed, but that the motivation of the sellers is disputed, or even projected

I think there can be no question about the motivation of S&S. Something like this: They saw books that are not easily available (either through their own doing or because [as it seems] they cannot print more, even if they are so inclined), and thought that people would want those books. Then they thought that the rarity of the books meant that there would be buyers for whom they were worth $35, even though they were slightly incomplete. Those buyers would presumably be happy to buy the books, and everyone wins.

If a third party had the books, and thought this way, there would be no serious controversy. Perhaps someone would be pissed, because someone always is pissed, but it wouldn't be a thread on L19.

The only question is whether because S&S originally printed the books, they have some special obligation to think of the matter in a different way.

So:

• I'm too lazy to read back and see who said or thought what, but if you're questioning their motives, then stop. That's dumb.
• I don't know what I think, something about the offer gave me a funny feeling. Yet it really is quite a bold claim that S&S must ignore that very ordinary rationale stated above.
  
  If you criticize, you're holding them to some very strict standard about how they see their role as a hobby/business. Do you really have good reason to think that not only is there an alternate way to see the situation, but that they are blameworthy for not having seen it?

[Chew Terr]

This is one of those books that came very highly recommended to me when I was a newer player, but I could never find a copy. Instead I learned from (and loved) Attack and Defense. It is interesting to me how the development and styles of go players is shaped by the availability of go books on the marketplace. One can imagine terms and even beginner joseki that are never learned by groups of players as books become more or less easy to find. Kind of cool.