This is from Reddit user @renstheripper. Thread is at http://www.reddit.com/r/bjj/comments...g_fighters_on/
"It is a terrible business decision. Cannibalizing a young and growing market.
Put it this way. Person A sells fruit salad on a Monday and Person B sells fruit salad on a Thursday. The consumers want fruit salad so they buy it on a Monday and a Thursday. Person A signs exclusive use of apples. Person B now has no apple in their fruit salad. Person A spruiks their apple content. Consumers now may not buy the apple-less fruit salad because they like apples and they are now cornered into buying fruit salad once a week when they liked having it twice. They now are driven to find an alternative on a Thursday and they find something they like. Sometimes they even have the alternative on a Monday which means less for Person A too.
Cut to the apple farmer, he is getting more per apple but selling less apples. His demand has stagnated and now his only ability to garner income is linked to one source. Other fruit producers are selling their produce to pie makers and juicers. They are more prominent in the market, their products are growing and becoming better. The apple farmer spends his income on a G in a Gi CD single and feels better.
What has happened to the entire market? Whilst once there may have been a market of 100 purchasers a week, it is down to 80. Each seller used to have 50 customers each. Now Person A has retained 45 as some have moved onto another product altogether and Person B is down to 35 customers because some motherfuckers like apples. Without a solid competitor, Person A's fruit salad has no peer to help drive innovation. Their fruit salad has not improved. The market has shrunk and they have capped growth. Before the entire market was able to grow to a more sustainable level they capped the growth potential of the entire market. Is 50% or 100% better? 50% of a 200 consumer market is better than 100% of an 80 consumer market.
TL;DR - Limiting a total market in a growth industry is done at the peril of all stakeholders. It is a level of dumb that is immeasurable. Never did the purchase of a competing event's PPV affect Metamoris. To then affect their quality is to limit the entire $ value of the market which means less investors, promoters, competitors and consumers."
"It is a terrible business decision. Cannibalizing a young and growing market.
Put it this way. Person A sells fruit salad on a Monday and Person B sells fruit salad on a Thursday. The consumers want fruit salad so they buy it on a Monday and a Thursday. Person A signs exclusive use of apples. Person B now has no apple in their fruit salad. Person A spruiks their apple content. Consumers now may not buy the apple-less fruit salad because they like apples and they are now cornered into buying fruit salad once a week when they liked having it twice. They now are driven to find an alternative on a Thursday and they find something they like. Sometimes they even have the alternative on a Monday which means less for Person A too.
Cut to the apple farmer, he is getting more per apple but selling less apples. His demand has stagnated and now his only ability to garner income is linked to one source. Other fruit producers are selling their produce to pie makers and juicers. They are more prominent in the market, their products are growing and becoming better. The apple farmer spends his income on a G in a Gi CD single and feels better.
What has happened to the entire market? Whilst once there may have been a market of 100 purchasers a week, it is down to 80. Each seller used to have 50 customers each. Now Person A has retained 45 as some have moved onto another product altogether and Person B is down to 35 customers because some motherfuckers like apples. Without a solid competitor, Person A's fruit salad has no peer to help drive innovation. Their fruit salad has not improved. The market has shrunk and they have capped growth. Before the entire market was able to grow to a more sustainable level they capped the growth potential of the entire market. Is 50% or 100% better? 50% of a 200 consumer market is better than 100% of an 80 consumer market.
TL;DR - Limiting a total market in a growth industry is done at the peril of all stakeholders. It is a level of dumb that is immeasurable. Never did the purchase of a competing event's PPV affect Metamoris. To then affect their quality is to limit the entire $ value of the market which means less investors, promoters, competitors and consumers."
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Keith D
