GuyIncognito wrote:So you DON'T understand inflation. How much was a Deluxe in 1984? About $10? $10 in 1984 dollars is equivalent to $22 today.
Even if you pay the highest price for a Deluxe today - $16.99 at TRU - that's equivalent to $7.50 in 1984 dollars.
Transformers today are smaller, more complex with more engineering and more moving parts, AND THEY COST LESS.
So you're saying the dollar today is worth approximately HALF of the dollar from 1984?
And if that's true, what's going on with the average household income? Huh, I'm seeing your point. It looks like the median in 84 was around $20,000, and now it's $46,000.
So, what you're saying is that $17 for a deluxe is a BARGAIN?
I guess I clearly don't understand inflation. I take "inflation" as a constant thing that occurs over many years; not as a variable that cuts the value of money in HALF in less than 30 years. That kind of dollar value drop is hardly something I'd consider "inflation"... seems like there should be a more dramatic terminology for that. But what do I know? Very little, apparently. Thanks for the explanation, dude!
Still, here are some things for YOU to consider: how much do most action figures cost today? $17-20? Hardly. Why did Target, Wal-Mart, and TRU lower the TF price from $16-7 to $13? And does the average parent consider $20 to be a bargain (as compared to 1984 dollars)?
Your explanation is a paper explanation - it sounds fantastic on paper! No doubt. But in reality, there ARE other factors than pure economics. Market prices. That's my focus. You can value your TF collection at $1 billion, and you can set the auction price at $1 billion, but... IF IT DOES NOT SELL AT $1 BILLION, THEN IT IS NOT WORTH $1 BILLION.
TF's are worth what people are willing to pay. Clearly, even $16 is not the right price point. And is it a coincidence that Hasbro is making so many Commander and Legion class toys?
Why is it paper theories with most of you guys? None of you are really factoring the average consumer: the parent. I just don't see parents buying expensive TF's. PERIOD. Unless the movie just came out, of course.
And my bigger complaint is NOT that the prices have increased (that's a natural economic phenomenon; do don't label me an uneducated idiot who can't even spell "inflation") - my bigger issue is how Hasbro can JUMP THE PRICE SO HIGH IN SO SHORT A TIME! The price didn't go up a dollar every year or two... it jumped to almost DOUBLE in just one year! INFLATION DOES NOT JUMP THAT MUCH IN ONE YEAR. I get that Hasbro was charging too little in the past and should have raised prices... but given their trouble making TF's popular WITHOUT A MOVIE, I'd say that raising prices on an ailing brand is NOT the way to sell more product. MARKET PRICES, NOT INFLATION-ADJUSTED-AND-THIS-IS-WHAT-I-DESERVE-TO-BE-PAID prices!
Dude, why not raise the prices gradually, reduce the TF sizes gradually... ease the transition? Or is it that Hasbro had a dramatic change in leadership, and some execs just dropped the hammer to "save the company" type of thing?
JelZe GoldRabbit wrote:And I see we've been using an incorrect but related Economic term:
devaluation of money. The point still stands however.
Thank you. Devaluation makes more sense to me than "inflation".
GuyIncognito wrote:According to
http://pleasesavemerobots.blogspot.com/ ... pse.html...
in 1985
Optimus Prime retailed for $19.88:
$43.35 in 2013 dollars,
Thrust retailed for $12.88,
$28.08 in today's dollars,
Smokescreen was $9.88, which is
$21.54 in 2013 dollars.
Conclusion: after adjusting for inflaction (because you ABSOLUTELY MUST adjust for inflation when comparing prices from different time periods), you can see that
Transformers are SIGNIFICANTLY CHEAPER now than they were in 1984-85.The absolute cost in dollars may have gone up, but our income levels have gone up EVEN MORE, so the real cost is down. In 1984, the median household income in the U.S. was about $20,000 and today it's about $50,000.
Another way to think about it: in 1984, someone making the median income could buy 2000 Smokescreens with what they make in a year. In 2013, someone making the median income could buy 3,333 Smokescreens (at $15 each). TF cost has increased, but income has increased even more, making the real cost lower.
Thank you for the nice comparisons (I actually looked up the Median incomes on my own, just a second ago). Economics is a pain... especially when the focus seems to be on the redistribution of wealth, which is counter-intuitive to the free-market idea that seems to be a big part of economics. Like I said before, it seems to me that regardless of absolute values, the product is only worth something when money exchanges hands.
If the TF's do not sell well at $17 (and you can make a strong argument that they don't), then they are hardly worth $17. Understand what I'm saying?
Look at it this way: if TF's are really CHEAPER than 1984 (as you say, with excellent examples), then why don't they sell BETTER than 1984? Certainly, basic economics dictate that a lower price (especially one that is lower than actual value of the product) increases sales... when there is demand. But if there's little demand for TF's? At what price is a TF figure a bargain? $17? $22 (1984 prices)?
Your comparison shows Optimus was sold as $44 in 1984, right? Well, maybe in 1984 you COULD sell an Optimus for that much (in fact, I'm sure some stores sold them for even more). But today? Does Optimus sell well at $44+?
I'm just trying to answer the question of why the TF brand isn't doing as well as it was in the past. Is it due to lowered popularity among kids? Maybe, like with the comic industry decline, the kids are more interested in video games and electronics? And if so, can Hasbro really justify adjusted prices on these toys?