Level 5 Refs at USFA Qualifiers

[edew]

Tim, ain't that just the case? You tell people you'll do it for free and they won't trust you enough to let you bend their blades back into shape. You charge $20 and they think you're a godsend.

Never give anything away for cheap that you can charge a premium on. It's not that you'll get more money, which is the case, but you'll get more business, which is the real important point.

(Who would've thought that you can bottle tap water and charge $3.00/gallon, or so, and make money hand over fist? Who drinks out of a fountain anymore, if you can get a bottle of Evian, right? Even still, no one's died of thirst because they can't get access to free water, either.)

[Gav]

I've just looked in on this thread for the 1st time and been amazed by some of the posts.

Even still, no one's died of thirst because they can't get access to free water, either.

Actually, access to drinking water [free or otherwise] is a major problem for the world. Some people HAVE died because they haven't had access to any drinking water. I'll let you off because of the context.

On the subject of paying for ref's through tournament fees:

I doubt your average competitor [whether they're a rec' fencer or elite] really cares about having properly trained FIE approved ref's on hand. Most just want it to be efficiently run. Having said that, given the choice, I'd like to think that Elite fencers would opt for properly certified presidents. I don't personally see what's wrong with having properly certified ref's being a requirement for your tournaments providing that:

1. They are availalble
2. If they are not available no-one gets penalised.

Bad calls (in Foil and Sabre at least) are a fact of Fencing life. I read a couple of posts from fencing parents who were complaining about bad descisions affecting kids chances of making teams. I don't think this is as big a problem as you might think. As you have an emotional stake in the outcome of any event your own judgement may become skewed. Parental protectiveness is a nice thing though.

As far as entry fees are concerned. There are a lot of factors that could affect the cost of a tournament, so you have a trade off. You have to be able to charge what the market will bear and, cover your running costs plus [with any luck] make a little profit for your club on the side. However I would find it disturbing to attend a tournament where an individual stood to make a profit from my attendance. With these factors in mind, if you have to employ correctly qualified ref's to attend, then these costs will add into your running costs and these will be passed back to your attendees. Finding the balance is the key. Charge too much and no-one will attend, charge too little and you might only just break even or [heaven forfbid] make a loss.

[edew]

Of course, the context was in a place where bottled water is a viable market.

As for referees, as a competitor, I would prefer to have competent referees over incompetent ones. But, I would prefer to have designated referees instead of self-officiating by the competitors. In a perfect world, competent referees assigned to officiate are hired to preside over the bouts.

For tournaments where qualification to national events, such as division championships, JO Qualifiers and the like, I as a competitor would like to have competent, hired referees presiding over my bouts.

The claim is, at least alluded to by the USFA and the FOC, is that a rated 5 or better referee is deemed competent. Sure, some people with 5's can't see right of way worth s*t. Some people with no ratings are good ROW referees. Them's the breaks. Get those who are already competent to pass the exam and GET his/her rating! Do what it takes.

As for charging too much. One is constantly amazed at how high a price can be and people will still pay. The problem is that too many people have a perception that a price-point is too high. On the other hand, for some products, no low enough of a price can make the sale. Fencing isn't in the latter case.

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by achilleus
A well organized tournament is worth the money. Believe me. Again check out the LBI or Duel in the Desert...

Fenced in both, and I agree, they are joys. But then, they were well run before the USFA decree, and not just because there was a 5 somewhere on site. I should point out, though, that Long Beach is in a fairly good-sized Division ( ! ) which will be unaffected by the new rule, and doesn't need "improvement" in the way the USFA envisions. Don't know much about Vegas, Division-wise or official-wise...

No, the majority pays the bills. The lowest common denominator, and the highest are ignored.

"Common denominator" implies...average, I think. That would seem to me to be awfully close to "the majority". No?

I don't see the world in black and white. I think this good for fencing, for the reasons I've mentioned. Yes it hurts some divisions, but on the whole, it's a step in the right direction.

Perhaps we ought to follow the physician's motto: "First, do no harm".

Unfortunately, to do otherwise involves us in a utility calculus that is too easily manipulated according to how the majority---or "the common good" or what have you---is defined.

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by sallearmourer
EDEW is right.

Nah. He's arguing that raising price means greater quantity demanded. This flies in the face of one of the most established laws of economics, the so-called Law of Demand. There are one or two theoretical exceptions to it, none which are likely ever to be encountered in the real world. Or even in the fencing world.

I use to charge 10.00 for rewires plus parts at NACS. I raise that to 20.00 plus parts. You think that I had a drop
in the number of rewires I do. NO NO NO they increased..

Then you are experiencing something that is not price-related, such as a shift in autonomous demand or a change in tastes. In other words, if your quantity demanded rose despite a 100% price hike, some other factor has entered the picture. It probably would have risen even more had you NOT raised price, though much depends on the elasticity of demand for your services ( that is, how much quantity demanded falls off for a given increase in price---this varies from product to product. Your is probably quite steep, I would hazard, given that you have a near monopoly at major events, the choice for the harried competitor being to have you do it or do it himself, pretty much ).


Think about it---based on Eric's logic you should raise your price to $1,000 per wire, and you'd be deluged with so much work that you'd be unable to cope. And tournaments with entry fees of $10,000 per event would make fencing more popular than soccer.

Seems pretty farfetched, doesn't it?

[edew]

Inq, please, you're out of your league here. The law of supply and demand showing price elasticity to demand only applies to commodity items. The vast majority of items for sale are not commodity items. Those that are commodity items are positioned by the seller into a non-commodity perception. That's why you can sell $3.00/gal bottle of water. That's why you can sell a $6.00 light bulb. That's why you can sell a slower CPU for a higher cost.

You have not clue what I meant and why Tim agreed that raising the cost will actually bring in demand. It's not the P*N = C sort of equation that's being played out. The thing that's being played out is psychological. There's a psychological perception of quality associated with a higher cost.

As another example, consider those dot-com companies that gave their product out for free. They gave things for free, and people didn't realize the value of it. And they died. The worst thing to do is give something for free and then tack on a price to it (unless you've managed to capture a monopoly of the market). It's better to charge a price, and then raise the price, if needed.

Lastly, "common denominator" in a colloquial sense doesn't mean anything. "lowest common denominator" will certain do not mean "average". It means the low end of anything, hence the qualifier, "lowest".

Vegas does not have referees of any sizable quantity. They do, however, put on a good show with the Duel In The Desert, importing virtually all the referees for that tournament.

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by edew
Inq, please, you're out of your league here.

LOL! If I am out of my league, you are a child playing stickball on a sandlot somewhere in the Third World...

My academic background is in economics---not general business, not marketing, not accounting, but economics. Again I ask, what is yours?


[quote]The law of supply and demand showing price elasticity to demand only applies to commodity items.

Eh, no. But thank you for playing.

The law of demand applies to ALL goods and services, unless you want to admit Geffen effects in a few rare cases. It applies more strongly to perfectly competitive commodity markets, and certainly there can be distortions in certain sorts of concentrated markets, but there are no exceptions for other goods, other market types or fencing tournaments.


{quote] Those that are commodity items are positioned by the seller into a non-commodity perception.

I am detecting a definite aroma of Marketing theory...

Never get your history by way of journalists, and never get your economic theory by way of marketers. Call it Inquartata's Axiom.

"Position into a non-commodity perception", indeed!

That's why you can sell $3.00/gal bottle of water. That's why you can sell a $6.00 light bulb. That's why you can sell a slower CPU for a higher cost.

You can sell them all because there exists a demand for them. You will sell fewer bottles of water at $3 than you will at $2. This, all else being held equal, is inescapable. The market may not clear at the lower price, but let's not bring supply into the equation just yet.

At higher prices, a lower quantity will be demanded than at lower prices, ceteris paribus. That's the Law of Demand, not just the law for commodities, and not just the law for everything but fencing.

You have not clue what I meant and why Tim agreed that raising the cost will actually bring in demand.

You demonstrate the superficial nature of your "understanding" of economics here, Eric. Cost is a supply-side term; the word you want is price, and price does not move demand, only quantity demanded. Nor, despite your claims to the contrary or Tim's apparent ( note, apparent ) anecdotal confirmation, will higher price result in a greater quantity demanded under normal circumstances, all else held equal.

As another example, consider those dot-com companies that gave their product out for free. They gave things for free, and people didn't realize the value of it. And they died. The worst thing to do is give something for free and then tack on a price to it (unless you've managed to capture a monopoly of the market). It's better to charge a price, and then raise the price, if needed.

And the relevance of this to your assertion that increasing P will lead to a greater Q demanded is....?

Lastly, "common denominator" in a colloquial sense doesn't mean anything. "lowest common denominator" will certain do not mean "average". It means the low end of anything, hence the qualifier, "lowest".

No, it means the one or more qualities which all members of a group have in common. As it was used above, in re the USFA's treatment of the "lowest common denominator", it was used imprecisely to mean those members whose interests do not particularly interest the USFA except as a source of revenue and support---neither the elite nor the competitive recreational fencer, in other words. And so that is the sense to which I replied.

[edew]

Nevermind....

Just that having all academic knowledge beaten out of me with a reality stick over the past eleven or so years might have shaded my feelings otherwise.

Go ahead and espouse your theories. Wonderful theories.

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by edew
Nevermind....

Just that having all academic knowledge beaten out of me with a reality stick over the past eleven or so years might have shaded my feelings otherwise.

Go ahead and espouse your theories. Wonderful theories.

Ah, yes, the old "Ah knows more'n yew book-larnin' fellers 'caws ah gots 'common sense' an' 'street smarts' " refrain...

[Mo]

BOYS!!!!
Edew your theories may hold true to a certain extent but there is a limit to how much people will and can pay. You can raise your price a certain amount and not have much effect but after a certain point, a lot of "get real" comments will happen.
As far as the armorer, he has a closed market and there are a lot more new fencers at meets. When people are desperate they will pay more.
When you've already sunk a couple thousand into hotels, plane tickets, coaching fees, food and condoms (for that tense night before the big event), another 20 bucks to get a weapon fixed is squat.
Pricing is not the only contributing factor to how much money people will pay. There are attendance ratios, the speed of growth of the sport, all kinds of things. Saying the increase of business is only due to raising fees is like saying you drive more because gas costs more.
Look at the big picture!!

[swordsen]

I am vaugely curious as to how closely tim's price hike and business increase was to the USFA prohibiting their armorers at these events from doing the repairs for free or for tips.
( I would have a hard time beliveing that anyone who knows fencing would rather get a $20 rewire from anybody than a free one at the national armorers table from the likes of Dan deschaine or bill Murphy.)

[Inquartata]

Mo---There's not a thing in your post with which a sensible person could disagree. You have restored my faith in the basic rationality of people!

Prices CAN as you say be changed without causing a great change in quantity demanded, depending on a lot of outside factors. But eventually, in every market and virtually every good and service, price hikes will mean fewer customers or less business, and vice versa.

If I recall from several months back, Tim told us that he had raised prices because he was getting too much business to handle, particularly last-minute "they're calling me to my strip, can you fix my foil NOW" business. If that is in fact why he raised his prices, he was behaving according to accepted economic principle----clearly his prices before were too low and he was not maximizing his revenue, so he made some adjustments. The result of the price hike, in isolation, should have been fewer jobs for which the increased prices more than compensate. If in fact he got MORE work after the hike, some other factor has taken a hand---any connection to the price hike was in all likelihood purely coincidental, timing-wise. Correlation, as the axiom goes, does not prove causation.

[edew]

Originally posted by Mo
BOYS!!!!
Edew your theories may hold true to a certain extent but there is a limit to how much people will and can pay. You can raise your price a certain amount and not have much effect but after a certain point, a lot of "get real" comments will happen.
As far as the armorer, he has a closed market and there are a lot more new fencers at meets. When people are desperate they will pay more.
When you've already sunk a couple thousand into hotels, plane tickets, coaching fees, food and condoms (for that tense night before the big event), another 20 bucks to get a weapon fixed is squat.
Pricing is not the only contributing factor to how much money people will pay. There are attendance ratios, the speed of growth of the sport, all kinds of things. Saying the increase of business is only due to raising fees is like saying you drive more because gas costs more.
Look at the big picture!!

Of course there is an art to properly pricing your product. You obviously can't charge a million bucks for something others are charging 10 dollars for. But if others are charging $10, and you charge $20, with some niche work involved, you'll get customers.

It's stupid to think that there is no upper bound. But the reality is that a higher price commands the perception of value, and that perception will be reflected in people asking for your business.

That's all. All you ijits can disbelieve me and go right ahead charging low-ball. Fine by me.

[edew]

Originally posted by swordsen
I am vaugely curious as to how closely tim's price hike and business increase was to the USFA prohibiting their armorers at these events from doing the repairs for free or for tips.
( I would have a hard time beliveing that anyone who knows fencing would rather get a $20 rewire from anybody than a free one at the national armorers table from the likes of Dan deschaine or bill Murphy.)

No one (in the armorers group) does repairs for free. At the very least, they will charge for the replacement item. Want a rewire? It'll cost you at least the price of the wire, from folks like DeChaine or others.

But, I'm giving up on you yokels. Feel free to believe that price is the only determining factor to business. Time and again, I've been told otherwise by those who actually make a living charging for their product or service.

A week ago, I attended a SCORE workshop (SCORE = Service Corp Of Retired Executives). We talked about tax laws, insurance, legal issues, business plan, and marketing. The last item was marketing. What was the first thing that came out of the speaker's talk? Don't underprice yourself. Of course, there's an upper bound which going over will lose sales. But, if you set your price too low, you LOSE business because people don't trust you. You're not valued. A friend of mine started her own pre-press business. Same thing. She raised prices, business DOUBLED. Price goes up, number of customers WENT UP. Another acquaintance, does wedding photography. Increased prices (to ostensibly reduce customers), business increased, had to hire on additional photographers. Me, personally, went to interviews for employment. Gave them a humble, low figure. No second call. Gave others a high demand for salary. Negotiated to something lower, but reasonable.

Of course, you have to know the market. You obviously can't just charge any number. But pricing it low in order to get more business is a fallacy. The reality is that lower price doesn't imply higher sales.

In-and-Out versus McDonald's. My son and his friends love In-and-Out. Think they are manna from god. I went there. Other than fresher veggies, there's no substantial difference in taste or quality. But it costs a bit more. Wendy's try to be high-end, and also charges a bit more. Who's dying out there in the burger business? McDonald's the current low-cost burger joint. (They're also dying because they have a menu the size of a football field with hundreds of options and such. In-and-Out has three types of burgers, fries, and soda. No salads, no smoothies, no hot apple pies, no chicken nuggets.)

So, please ignore my comments. Fine by me.

[Inquartata]

Eric, no one said that price is the ONLY consideration. But you made the bald assertion that raising your price will bring you more business, and that's plainly rubbish.

If you charge $10 for widgets, and I charge $20, of COURSE I'll "get customers". But I guarantee, a darn sight less than you will.

It's all about maximizing revenue, and that may well be different for each firm, as each firm may have differenct costs. Which is why low-cost LOW-fare airlines are doing better than high-cost HIGH-fare ones, for instance. But the proposition that raising price in and of itself will increase quantity demanded is still nonsense, and no amount of calling every economist on earth an "ijit" because they call you on that obvious balderdash will alter that fact.

[Peach]

I had some insight yesterday into why the Duel in the Desert does well, despite high fees. Several people were there talking about the prizes the winners get . . . It's like the casinos or confidence scams, you can get people to pay a whole lot if they think there's a possibility, even small, of getting a whole lot more back.

[Crash55]

I have been sitting here reading this column and am amazed at the amount of BS and stupidity that keeps getting bantered back and forth. Both Inquartata and edew are right. The problem is that they are not actually listening to the other. Well actually Inquartata is paying some attention while edew seems to have his fingers in his ears saying "na-na-na" and like any such person he is taking his ball and going home now.

Like Inquartata said ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL an increase in price will reduce the number of buyers. edew's examples of to the contrary have not been applicable. In each of his examples the buyer's perception of the two products has not been the same. When people assume that one thing is of higher quality they will pay more for it. That is why the higher priced grocery store survives, people think they are high quality. If the price is too low people assume the item is of low quality. The idea of "lowest cost bidders" and "you don't got anything for free" pertain to this. Convincing people that your quality is worth the higher price is marketing.


The armorer charging more for rewiring has more to do with a captive audience than quality. So long as rewiring is cheaper than buying a new blade and there are no lower cost (but not free as free scares people) alternatives than they will pay the price. My guess is his increase in customers is due to two things: increase in fencers and worth of mouth saying he does a quality job. If peopel are saying that he is worth what he charges then people will assume his quality is worth the cost. I am also willing to bet that there has been an increase in junior fencers commensurate with his increase in customers. I have noticed that most of the younger fencers have no clue how to fix their own weapons. So their only choice is pay the price or buy a new blade. At $20 a rewire is still cheaper than a new blade, so people are still chooisng the lower priced alternatives.

As for tournaments people are willing to pay more if they think it is a better tournament. If people think your tournament is run better and offers better prizes than they will pay the increase. Also if yours is the only tournament then they really don't have much in the way of options do they? If there was another tournament down the street that offered the same quality at a lower price than people would go there instead. Juniors will always pay more because it is mommy and daddy's money so they don't care.

I go to the Pomme de Terre every year even though it is significantly more expensive than my local tournaments. I go not for the prizes (I don't have a shot at winning) but because of the level of competition. I see the same people all the time at my local tournaments so the extra price is worth it to me to fence new and better people. However I know quite a few people that won't go because of the cost. For them this increase in quality is not worth the increase in price.

Inquartata is right all things being equal higher price will mean less customers, provided the customers have a viable alternative. This doens not apply to what edew is saying since he has not presented a situation where all things are equal. All of his examples have had perceived differenced in quality between the alternatives. This means things are not equal. Fencing is hard to fit into Inquartata's model since there are rarely alternatives available. If you want or need to fence then you will pay what you have to, so long as the cost isn't prohibitively expensive.

The New England Division has been complaining about too many fencers at tournaments so they dropped the student rates. According to edew there shouls be an increase in student aged fencers this year. My guess is they will see a drop in college age entries but HS aged people will follow previous trends.

[oiuyt]

A couple additions to Andy's points regarding the PdT and the new fee structure in NE div.

About two years ago the PdTjumped their fees up. Nothing drastic, but it was noticible. There were a LOT of additional complaints and at least several high profile local fencers either didn't fence or nearly didn't fence because of it. This past year probably had the highest turnout ever. Because the fees were raised a couple of years ago? No. The division's growing (1500-1600 members now IIRC) and there are that many more fencers available (not to mention all of the other divisions that people travel from which are also growing).

The fee change in NE division wasn't designed to reduce field sizes. It was more based on a change in emphasis. People realized that junior fencers are more likely to need outside referees than senior fencers, so there's a higher cost to the division from those fencers yet they were paying half what the seniors were. As Andy mentioned, this is unlikely to noticibly affect the number of entries from the HS crowd but might reduce the number of collegiate entries. I'm not sure that I would expect much change even there. $10 is still no more expensive than anywhere else in the area, and the fencing in Boston is still the best this side of NYC. There should be minimal reduction in entries due to this change (I think the demand is very price-insensitive in this range). Just more evidence that field size wasn't a primary factor in the decision to increase rates.

-B :)