Funhouse decal sets running low

Archived from groups: rec.games.pinball (More info?)

I hope my Check got there ??

Thanks Darin, !!

Pin-Del,

Archived from groups: rec.games.pinball (More info?)

im so sorry. i tried to work a deal with a 25% royalty on each sale.
but the future rights owner requires 25% UPFRONT of HIS retail price
that HE sets, which is unprecedented in anything pinball related. it
makes no financial sense whatsoever to sign such a contract.

basically, if i was licensed to run earthshaker decal sets (for example
purposes) and i made a 100 sets at a retail price of $300 (that was set
by future rights owner) and somehow sold 40 sets, i would have spent
$7500 on licensing fees upfront in addition to the production costs of
$100 each (for example purposes) i would be in the hole $5500. but if
the 25% was taken off the 40 sales (40x$300=$12,000-25% royalty=$3000
added to production costs of $10,000) one would only suffer a $1000
loss.

so most titles would never get made. very few would have a chance at
making money under this scenario. but if the 25% was taken off the
actual sales price, then youd be willing to take a risk on lower
production titles.

Archived from groups: rec.games.pinball (More info?)

But if you signed a contract for just 40 sets, wouldn't you make money?
Like, $5,000?

Archived from groups: rec.games.pinball (More info?)

martin wrote:
> But if you signed a contract for just 40 sets, wouldn't you make money?
> Like, $5,000?

As I understood Darin's post (and not based on any private
communications we have had on this issue), he would not get to set the
selling price so he would be wide open to take a big hit up front over
and above the actual production cost. And what if the selling price
was set too low? That would reduce his initial outlay but could result
in a huge loss due to the production cost. Also, it was not clear in
his post if he would be obligated to produce any specific items or any
at all or would get to say how many would be produced. If that wasn't
his option he could end up having to produce whether he wanted to or
not. Just as bad, if the option regarding how many to produce was not
his he could be forced to produce too few, thereby making the
production cost too high or he might need to produce too many which
would make the royalty so large it would be unreasonable to put out
that much money up front.

Just based on what he said in his post, it seems clear that Darin made
the right decision not to enter into the contract. On the other hand,
if he had been given a license which simply involved paying the 25%
royalty with each sale made, it would not have cost the "Future Rights
Owner" one penny, since Darin would have been advancing all of the
costs and taking on all the risks. Then all the FRO would need to do
is sit back and wait for the money to roll in and, maybe, review some
periodic sales reports from Darin. After all, it isn't like Darin has
a bad reputation and can't be trusted to give an honest accounting,
which is the only reason I can think of for a demand that royalties be
paid in advance.

Hopefully, if the FRO doesn't develop another source or finds that
Darin's product is superior, he will reconsider allowing Darin to
simply pay periodic post-sale royalties rather than a single lump sum
pre-sale one.

Bob

Archived from groups: rec.games.pinball (More info?)

sales@mrpinball.com.au wrote:
> It does not matter as the decals will be for sale after Oct 12th from
> us and distributors and it won't cost you any more.
> These guys pay the printer up front why is a fee any different...

My post was being composed and I did not see your above post until I
went back to the string to veiw my own post.

I need to clarify that as the one who holds the rights you are
certainly entitled to impose any contractual terms you wish and I was
not disparaging your business decision. And, based on your above post
which asks why the terms you set were any different from the up front
payment to a printer, I hope my post actually answers that question in
an objective and non-accusatory way.

But, to directly respond to your comment that, "These guys pay the
printer up front why is a fee any different..." I see a clear
difference (IMHO). A printer doesn't tell a customer how many of what
(which may or may not be the case with the proposed royalty contract)
and the printer's customer can decide whether to spend the money or not
(which may or may not also be the case with the proposed royalty
contract). Most importantly, the printer needs to keep his prices
competetive or the customer will go elsewhere. But one who holds a
licence doesn't have to worry about competition and so can set any
price regardless of whether or not that serves to give the person being
licenced a comfort zone of being able to anticipate a profit rather
than a loss when he spends up front dollars.

The bottom line is that you are not to be faulted for the terms you set
nor is Darin is to be faulted for declining. Neither of you can be
blamed for your business decisions and, hopefully, in time, it will all
work out for the best for all concerned; for you, for Darin and, most
importantly, for the ultimate customers.

Bob

Archived from groups: rec.games.pinball (More info?)

Yeah Darin, and its a hell of a lot easier to just request a sample of
someone's work and then print them off without any extra work or
talent. I found that funny that he requested samples and then BAM slams
this extortion on top of you. He should have just said send me samples,
cause Im gonna run you out of business and be the only show in town,
and get 100% of the money. Sad, truely sad in my opinion.

Archived from groups: rec.games.pinball (More info?)

This is why we need to boycott Wayne!!!


<mikep28@omuonline.net> wrote in message
news:1126974774.070664.194240@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Yeah Darin, and its a hell of a lot easier to just request a sample of
> someone's work and then print them off without any extra work or
> talent. I found that funny that he requested samples and then BAM slams
> this extortion on top of you. He should have just said send me samples,
> cause Im gonna run you out of business and be the only show in town,
> and get 100% of the money. Sad, truely sad in my opinion.
>

Archived from groups: rec.games.pinball (More info?)

On 17 Sep 2005 16:44:07 -0700, "MitchelWB" <mitchelwb-rgp@yahoo.com>
wrote:

[...]

>
>Seems like this idea would work for everybody. Especially if the
>rights owner feels that dropping an enourmous amount of money up front
>is a viable way to run a business.

You're talking sense. Wayne will never understand it.

Archived from groups: rec.games.pinball (More info?)

If someone had come to us for 40 decals the deal would be for 40
decals,
each deal varies from 0% to 25% depending on the product.

Not that I am willing to discuss the specific deal % and details on
this specific supplier.

All i can say is we paid for a license with no guarantee of a return if
a supplier comes to us and does not like the terms we offer or visa
versa thats life.

There will be many more products becoming available after Oct 12th
because there is now 2 players in the ball game...

Future rights, we have the rights now, however if we take someone to
court any damages will not go to us, I can't explain the current
situation with enforcement nor understand it but come Oct 12th things
will be different.

take care

Archived from groups: rec.games.pinball (More info?)

The irony of all this is that it has resulted in lots of folks
indirectly participating in what was, in essence, a contract dispute
between two parties.

When I negotiate the terms of a contract for a client there are
normally only the parties and the lawyers knocking heads and if no
contract is formed it's just that simple fact which may become public.
This contractual matter has taken on a life of its own, with all sorts
of folks offering their opinions and suggestions concerning the terms
of the proposed contract and in support of one party or the other.
It's almost like each side had a bunch of lawyers who don't just argue
about the terms of the contract but also argue about the character of
each other's client, going on to not only argue among themselves but to
also argue directly with each other's client, while their clients are
also arguing directly with each other. If we were in a courtroom I'm
sure the judge would be banging the gavel and shouting for order in the
court by now.

I know we are only in the court of public opinion here on the rgp but
it seems to me that things have gotten a bit out of hand... especially
since it appears clear that, at the present time, Darin and Wayne
aren't going to be able to get together. If anything, they are being
pushed further apart (if that is possible) by the ongoing public
position taking on their part and on the part of those of us who have
posted to this string.

I think the best thing to do at this point is to let everyone cool down
and not fan the flames, regardless of whether it is Darin or Wayne who
is sitting closest to the fire...
as always "IMHO"

Bob

Archived from groups: rec.games.pinball (More info?)

azarcadegames@cox.net wrote:
> im so sorry. i tried to work a deal with a 25% royalty on each sale.
> but the future rights owner requires 25% UPFRONT of HIS retail price
> that HE sets, which is unprecedented in anything pinball related. it
> makes no financial sense whatsoever to sign such a contract.
>

Don't get me wrong! I'm not blaming you! I'm blaming the future rights
owner.

Archived from groups: rec.games.pinball (More info?)

sales@mrpinball.com.au wrote:
> Meaning I can't understand why IPB or Williams has not sued his arse
> off.
>
> As I said at this point it has no financial affect on me.
>

Maybe because they aren't making anything and the whole thing is going
to end up in your lap so why the heck would they give a flying leap
about it?