Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

From: Kama <kama@*******.NET>
Subject: Re: Lady J's Stats
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1998 14:25:21 -0400
On Fri, 2 Oct 1998, Donald Arganbright wrote:

> Hoi,
>
> >>As a matter of interest, here are some figures.
>
> >>According to Comic Retailer Monthly, FASA products account for:
> >>3.10% of the RPG market [Shadowrun and, currently, Earthdawn]
> >>0.069% of the card games [Shadowrun Trading Card Game]
> >>7% of Miniature Gmes Starter Sets [Battletech]
> >>27% of Miniature game rules supplements.
> >>
> >>Make of them what you will.
> >>

(Large SNIP)

>
> I think that this goes along way in explaning things. Fasa is a
> profitable company, they can see where the main focus of their profits
> are coming from and then they can take that money and spread it around
> where they feel it needs to go. Of course they are going to reinvest
> most of the money in the departments that made them the most money in
> the first place. All that is left will trickle down into the other
> departments.

(More Snippage)

I'm not sure that this should be taken as explaining things in and of
itself. While Lady J has given us statistics {Remember - lies, damn lies,
and statistics} as to what percentage of various markets FASA currently
holds, there has been no indication as to the size of those markets.
Admittedly, we have some guesses as to how large each of these markets are
based on our own experiences, but without firmer numbers I will not make a
conclusion as to which lines are producing the most profits.

As an example, which would you rather have .002% of the computer software
market (worth goodness knows how many billions) or 100% of the used bubble
gum market (worth $0.03 in a good year)?

- Kama

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.