Retro game store Up-pricing right in front of a customer, opinions?

[Emperor Megas]

As a note though, I collect Sega CD as well and the days of a $100 Snatcher is long gone (at least for now) unless you want it loose or something. Don't get me started on Popful Mail since it seems to be spiking lately after being pretty low for so long, and if you want a copy Keio you basically need to sell body parts.

Holy cow! WTF is up with that Keio Flying Squadron price? $500, seriously!?

At $90 (on eBay) Keio Flying Squadron was probably the most I ever paid for a single game in my life, and I had to be egged on by my other half because I was so wishy washy and on the fence. In the end she paid for half of it as a gift, and I still felt a little guilty because I just don't spend that much on games (or much of anything for myself). That $90 seems pretty laughable now, considering. It's the same with my $20 M.U.S.H.A. (another eBay acquisition), and the $60 Snatcher that I got from a special store that's since grown and doesn't even deal in SEGA CD games anymore.

It's time to burn a copy of my Keio Flying Squadron disc because at upwards of $500, this mint copy I have needs to get SOLD!

[goatdan]

As for Mega Media, these have to be franchised, right?

That is correct...

I've been to all the ones here in Milwaukee, as well as Green Bay and Appleton....and they all have vastly different prices for the same games, and movies even. What the manager told you about how the system incorrectly applies lower prices to rare games may affect us, the customer, but that same logic doesn't seem to apply to their employees. A few years ago someone had traded in a complete copy of Earthbound at the 76th St location, because there it was behind the counter, priced at $19.99, and it was already reserved for one of the employees.

It depends. The 76th Street one is the one that I know the most, and one of their managers there has told me that the thing that he hates the most about their name is that the other stores around town that are called the same thing sort of lump them in with how those stores operate.

As for that 76th Street location, there are a few things. First, Greenfield has a rule that for any used merchandise, you have to hold onto it for a certain period before you can sell it in case anyone finds out it was stolen and wants to investigate. Because of that, that store does put things out later than the others, but it isn't by their choice... Along with that, until just a year or so ago, the people that owned them, every time anything rare came in, they would have to pull the games to send to the "warehouse" so the warehouse could instead sell the games on Amazon. Trust me - it wasn't an employee getting that copy of Earthbound, as they were just as annoyed with this rule as I was back then. One game in particular, Batman Forever for the Saturn, not a rare game at least back then they got in. I have always sort of wanted it, as I remember the arcade game - I think with rose colored glasses, but still I'd like to try it - and I asked if I could buy the game. They told me it needed to be sold though Amazon with their warehouse. I told them that I would pay whatever they listed it for, since I could physically see the copy, and they told me they still couldn't do it.

After the employees basically begged them over and over to experiment with carrying some of the more expensive stuff in the store, they now do - and, from what I've been told, it sells really well too. But that probably started about a year ago now. Not that you can get Earthbound for $19.99, but trust me - 76th Street does not have their employees hanging all over stuff keeping it for themselves.

I usually go to the Mega Media on Brady and Farwell because it's closest to me. I noticed that every week when new movies came out into the stores, this Mega Media would already have multiple 'used' copies for sale behind their counter. So I asked the dude behind the counter what was up with that, and he flat out told me that there's a guy who steals these movies from retail stores and sells them to this Mega Media. I'm not going to get into the moral part of this thing, but knowingly buying stolen property is so f'n illegal. I used to be in charge of Loss Prevention for one of the 'Big 3' retailers and every Tuesday, which is new release day, I'd have to keep my eyes out for these bozos who would try to lift multiple new releases of blu rays and DVDs so that, apparently, they could sell them to the Mega Media on Brady and Farwell.

Wouldn't doubt it. On the flip side, I have multiple times seen the Mega Media on 76th Street turn down people with merchandise they think may have been stolen.

Again, it's too bad that the others in town are called Mega Media Xchange...

[goatdan]

What the OP asked about is indeed prohibited in certain states. California and Michigan come to mind. There's probably a few others.

Then it must just be in certain states...

You live in Wisconsin right? The state is well known for its minimum markup law. What you heard about probably involves an item being advertised at a price that would violate that law.

No - that applies to gas. Trust me, I run a retail business here. There are no rules at least here that says that I need to sell a game for the lowest marked price, nor is there anything saying what I can or cannot do with my markups.

I don't sell gas. That is the ONE thing that there is a law about here.

I can take a picture of the state weights & measures sticker that says "YOU ARE ENTITLED TO THE LOWEST POSTED PRICE ON ANY ITEM" next time I'm in a store if you'd like. As Richie said, I believe it varies state to state.

Yeah, but this is one of those nearly unenforceable laws, as you go on to basically outline in the rest of your reply. I'm guaranteed the lowest price, but how can the store not guarantee that I didn't swap the sale sign, or bring in an old one, or... whatever else, really. It all comes down to hearsay in these situations, and I can't imagine any store in their right mind that would put up a sign that says, "Hey, buy this awesome thing for $1.00!" and then sells whatever it is for $5.00 purposely. But, go to buy an item at $1.00 and it rings up at $5.00, if the store says that someone must have moved a sign, then that is all that they need to do to deny you a sale.

So anyway, it may be prohibited, but even if it is, try to get it to be enforced. I can't imagine it would work.

[SparTonberry]

Probably why big-box stores like Best Buy write the price on a sticker on the shelf with the product name.
Makes it harder for either the store or the customer to scam the other.
(well, at least for stuff that's valuable.)

[Robocop2]

I managed a Radio Shack here in TX for a couple of years and if you had a price posted, you had to sell for that price. The only exclusion to that issue was stuff that is/was on sale because there is a little date the price is valid right there on the price sticker. You probably see them on the stickers at BB or any other retail establishment. But any time we had a price increase we had to scramble to put up the new prices on all the items so we didn't end up in that situation but yeah if it rang up for a higher price than what was advertised, we got to sell it at the lower price.

Of course like goatden says; good luck enforcing that.

It's still bad business all around to do that. If you had asked and then left sure it's fine prices change all the time but standing there at the counter money in hand is a different story entirely.

[JSoup]

Only had this happen once before.

Back when the GBA was active, a local GameStop (which has just converted to a GameStop from Funcoland, one of the last Funcolands to hold onto the name that I know of) had a copy of Pokemon FireRed in the game case with a sticker for $15, which was cheaper than I had seen it anywhere else, in fact I think $15 is pretty cheap for that game even today.

A little back story on this store, it was a great store and still is. The one problem was the manager, who was the sales person in this story. Now, see, he's was stuck in a wheel chair due to some past injury. It may seem insensitive to bring this up, but it's kinda important to understand why people didn't like him. His wheel chair gave him a major inferiority complex and it lead to him being a haughty, know-it-all jerkass. Changing prices on the fly, randomly tossing people out of the store for disagreeing with him, calling security on people for attempted theft (that is, picking up game cases to read the back), etc. But, somehow, he always made sales, so he was quickly made a manager.

Anyway:
Me:...it's marked $15.
Him: It's $40.
Me: The sticker says $15.
Him: I know what it says. It goes for $40 elsewhere and it's not leaving this store for anything less.
Me: Bye.

I ended up stopping by a few hours later, before closing time and getting the game for the sticker price from a friend who worked there. I was later informed by that same friend that the manager saw that the game had been sold, checked the register, then the security camera and told the staff to "call security if that kid comes in again, he's no longer allowed to shop here".

[Richie]

Then it must just be in certain states...



No - that applies to gas. Trust me, I run a retail business here. There are no rules at least here that says that I need to sell a game for the lowest marked price, nor is there anything saying what I can or cannot do with my markups.

I don't sell gas. That is the ONE thing that there is a law about here.

I guess it bears repeating: Wisconsin is well known, some might say infamous, for their minimum markup law.

http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/stat...tatutes/100/30

This is the Unfair Sales Act for the state of Wisconsin. Read it thoroughly. It is applicable to nearly all goods sold in the state of Wisconsin.

So while it's not really applicable to what the OP was talking about, it does outline what I was talking about earlier. Retailers in Wisconsin are not allowed to sell below wholesale, a common Black Friday sales technique. Which would make sense as to why you heard about a big box retailer not honoring the price in an advertisement. It would be illegal for them to do so.

[goatdan]

I guess it bears repeating: Wisconsin is well known, some might say infamous, for their minimum markup law.

This is the Unfair Sales Act for the state of Wisconsin. Read it thoroughly. It is applicable to nearly all goods sold in the state of Wisconsin.

I'm actually a retailer in the state of Wisconsin, and with the Midwest Gaming Classic I'm responsible for sharing rules of the state with other retailers, and with the exception of the petroleum stuff, it's essentially unenforceable how it is.

To quote the law... (boldface mine for emphasis)

(1)  Policy. The practice of selling certain items of merchandise below cost...

(a) "Average posted terminal price" means the average posted rack price, as published by a petroleum price reporting service...

Okay, so that's a pretty well defined price index. And the idea behind that is that you don't have gas stations constantly selling far under one another to put the other out of business, and then jack up their own prices. You can debate whether that is helpful or harmful to the consumer, but it's pretty darn well defined.

There is some language about pricing other goods, but the important parts are here:

2. ... "cost to retailer" means the invoice cost of the merchandise to the retailer, or replacement cost of the merchandise to the retailer, whichever is lower, ...

(6) Exceptions.
(a) The provisions of this section shall not apply to sales at retail or sales at wholesale where:
1. Merchandise is sold in bona fide clearance sales.
2. Perishable merchandise must be sold promptly in order to forestall loss.
3. Merchandise is imperfect or damaged or is being discontinued.
4. Merchandise is sold upon the final liquidation of any business.
...
7. The price of merchandise is made in good faith to meet an existing price of a competitor and is based on evidence in the possession of the retailer, wholesaler, wholesaler of motor vehicle fuel or refiner in the form of an advertisement, proof of sale or receipted purchase, price survey or other business record maintained by the retailer, wholesaler, wholesaler of motor vehicle fuel or refiner in the ordinary course of trade or the usual conduct of business.

So, yes - You have to mark up the price above the "replacement price" of the merchandise (which in itself is a rather ambiguous and unprovable thing to try to get a handle on) unless you have a ton of different acceptable reasons for marking it down to begin with. I can pretty much guarantee you that there is really no enforceable way to do this with anything *except* gas, which is why it really doesn't actually affect anyone here.

Now, to bring this back around to the original topic, especially with places that purchase used items to resell, it is unenforceable. The stores make offers for the goods based on what they think they are worth, but if GameStop buys 1000 Madden 2013s for $20 and they want to sell them for $10, all they have to do is believe that the next person who wants to sell Madden 2013 will do so for a price better than that, and they are acting in good faith.

For Black Friday, businesses can get away with the really low prices in two different ways - the first is that the majority of the stuff that is sold on Black Friday is limited production models that companies make just for that day's sales. Often, they are slightly modified "regular" production models with cheaper components. The stores clearance out these specials at really low prices, effectively skirting the law. And it isn't just Wisconsin that does this, the person that pointed out the practice to me ran a store in Illinois, and said that it was done to ensure they didn't accidentally get more shipments in during the sale period. Secondly, as long as any other store has a low price, another store can do the same thing.

It actually wasn't this state that Target was not honoring their sales price in, I read about that on another forums when the deal came out.

The rules are wonky, but they were written in a way that they are basically unenforceable how they are, and they really don't affect anything in Wisconsin. The only way that a regular retail establishment would EVER get caught in that law is if they are doing something constantly stupid, in which case the wholesaler would stop them anyway. For instance, if you are a store in any state, and you decide to sell all your PS3s at $20 to get people to shop with you, Sony is going to stop giving you PS3s. It would turn itself into a "bona fide clearance" in Wisconsin, as they wouldn't be able to restock, and would basically stop the law from kicking in anyway.

I'm sure that you nor anyone else cared for that much information on this, but it's actually a topic that I know pretty well considering both the GOAT Store and Midwest Gaming Classic, so I think it's worth clearing up on here.

[Richie]

Now might be a good time for you to take a step back, and try looking at things beyond your small business microcosm.

The last time you "cleared things up" you stated that no laws existed anywhere in regard to lowest advertised price. (You were wrong.) Then it was minimum markup laws exist solely for fuel sales. (You were wrong again.) Now they're unenforceable. (3 outta 3.)

Read the law again. It's designed to protect small businesses from being undersold by larger retailers. Sometimes they even call it a "mom & pop law".

What I don't think you realize about business is that competition between big box stores is incredibly fierce. It's not consumers who call the man on Best Buy, it's their competitors. Somebody your size may be able to get by skirting the law, but Wal-Mart, Target, and Best Buy can't.

I don't find your resume particularly impressive and I'd appreciate if you stop spreading hearsay under the guise of fact.

[JSoup]

I don't find your resume particularly impressive and I'd appreciate if you stop spreading hearsay under the guise of fact.

That's kind of the bread and butter of this community, so good luck with that.

[goatdan]

Now might be a good time for you to take a step back, and try looking at things beyond your small business microcosm.

The last time you "cleared things up" you stated that no laws existed anywhere in regard to lowest advertised price. (You were wrong.) Then it was minimum markup laws exist solely for fuel sales. (You were wrong again.) Now they're unenforceable. (3 outta 3.)

Actually, I'd argue that I was right - the laws are unenforceable, I was right - they basically only do fuel, and I was right, they are unenforceable.

Read the law again. It's designed to protect small businesses from being undersold by larger retailers. Sometimes they even call it a "mom & pop law".

What I don't think you realize about business is that competition between big box stores is incredibly fierce. It's not consumers who call the man on Best Buy, it's their competitors. Somebody your size may be able to get by skirting the law, but Wal-Mart, Target, and Best Buy can't.

I like that you are now accusing me of illegal activity, but it isn't "skirting the law." It's using the law exactly as it is written, which makes it basically unenforceable.

I don't find your resume particularly impressive and I'd appreciate if you stop spreading hearsay under the guise of fact.

Okay Mr. 66 posts, I can see how you would come on here and know so much more than someone living and operating under the rules who has to understand them. Sorry that my "resume isn't good enough for you." Since you're so knowledgeable, I'd love to see more than a couple examples about this law being enforced with any sort of regularity in Wisconsin on anything other than fuel. Yes - some businesses have pointed at it as a reason they won't honor prices that are "too low", but I'd like to see all the businesses that have been fined for not marking something up enough.

Good luck.

Edit: Oh, and for the record, I have no care if you have 66 posts or 66,000 posts, but you've made no mention of anything that backs up any of your claims. Your "resume" as you said about me is non-existent. I am relatively well known for actually running things in Wisconsin that pertain to the conversation, which is why I pointed it out. Maybe you run Best Buy regionally, and maybe this affects you way more than everyone we have paid and worked with has told us that it affects us - which is not at all - but you can't prove that either, making your claims just as underwhelming if not more so. Your bringing of that law into this matter, which it had nothing to do with, was to try to make a point about me not knowing about something that I was talking about... that didn't happen in Wisconsin. If you'd like, I can dig up the thread about it from some other forums and link to it.

So with that, I don't find your resume at all, I don't appreciate you now accusing me of illegal activities, and I'm not going to start taking your opinion over the paid legal opinions that we have sought out instead. But thanks.

[JSoup]

What I'm seeing are two people who are both basically correct in their differing account of how the law works and neither is willing to admit the other has a point.

[Emperor Megas]

What I'm seeing are two people who are both basically correct in their differing account of how the law works and neither is willing to admit the other has a point.

I haven't followed every post, but from what I have read I think you're right.

[Richie]

Having a point is one thing. Ignorantly spreading misinformation is another. As our "points" completely contradict one another, I think it's safe to say that only one of us is correct.

I think it's worth noting that owning a retail business does not qualify one to interpret law, or even make a reasonable and sensible decision. There's enough stories in this thread to prove that.

Read the law again.

2. With respect to the sale of merchandise other than cigarettes or other tobacco products, fermented malt beverages, intoxicating liquor or wine, or motor vehicle fuel, "cost to retailer" means the invoice cost of the merchandise to the retailer, or replacement cost of the merchandise to the retailer, whichever is lower, less all trade discounts except customary discounts for cash, plus any excise taxes imposed on such merchandise or the sale thereof other than excise taxes collected by the retailer, and any cost incurred for transportation and any other charges not otherwise included in the invoice cost or the replacement cost of the merchandise as herein set forth.

That's the part that defines replacement cost for retailers selling anything outside of tobacco, alcohol, and fuel. Very strange to find it included in what is supposedly a fuel only law.

I don't think its important to really address that list of exemptions, but....maybe you missed the part that discredits your belief that a retailer can just do whatever they want:

(b) No retailer or wholesaler may claim the exemptions under par. (a) 1. to 4. if he or she limits or otherwise restricts the quantity of such merchandise which can be purchased by any buyer or if he or she fails to conspicuously disclose the reason for such sale in all advertisements relating thereto and on a label or tag on such merchandise or on a placard where the merchandise is displayed for sale.

In other words, if a retailer wants to claim an exemption they have to advertise it. Any large retailer that attempts to advertise a falsely claimed exemption is opening themselves and their records up to examination by the state.

I realize that your quantity of merchandise purchased from wholesalers is limited and whether these laws are completely applicable to you may be debatable. Then again, this really isn't about your business's relationship to the law, it's about whether or not the law exists.

To address the legality of your business affairs: I don't know how you got an accusation out of what I wrote, but then again, you weren't capable of comprehending the law.........

As previously stated, a small or independently owned business is not who is policed under a minimum markup law. It's the larger retailers. That's not to say a small business can't be guilty of violating the law, but they're far less likely to be scrutinized. As such, your personal experience really means very little when it comes to this law. I'd be hard pressed to believe that you deal with the FTC on a regular basis, if at all.

Lemme go ahead and help you with your next reply. It starts with "I'm a retailer" and is followed by a bunch of bullshit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKG07305CBs

[goatdan]

Short replies, because I think that as everyone else has noted, it doesn't really matter what I am going to say, you're going to try to say that I have no idea what I'm talking about.

Having a point is one thing. Ignorantly spreading misinformation is another. As our "points" completely contradict one another, I think it's safe to say that only one of us is correct.

I think it's worth noting that owning a retail business does not qualify one to interpret law, or even make a reasonable and sensible decision. There's enough stories in this thread to prove that.

Okay, and what gives you any knowledge of how to do this? Sorry if I tried using "real world" examples where I have dealt with this to explain it.

Read the law again.

2. With respect to the sale of merchandise other than cigarettes or other tobacco products, fermented malt beverages, intoxicating liquor or wine, or motor vehicle fuel, "cost to retailer" means the invoice cost of the merchandise to the retailer, or replacement cost of the merchandise to the retailer, whichever is lower, less all trade discounts except customary discounts for cash, plus any excise taxes imposed on such merchandise or the sale thereof other than excise taxes collected by the retailer, and any cost incurred for transportation and any other charges not otherwise included in the invoice cost or the replacement cost of the merchandise as herein set forth.

That's the part that defines replacement cost for retailers selling anything outside of tobacco, alcohol, and fuel. Very strange to find it included in what is supposedly a fuel only law.

No, it's still completely ambiguous. Let's say that I sold Wiis for $50 because a wholesaler told me that I could get a deal with him for $40. Who is to say that is wrong? It's a law based on hearsay, which is exactly why it is unenforceable. How can you prove I (or anyone else) *didn't* actually see it at a lower price? And pricing changes regularly, and isn't always written down.

I don't think its important to really address that list of exemptions, but....maybe you missed the part that discredits your belief that a retailer can just do whatever they want:

(b) No retailer or wholesaler may claim the exemptions under par. (a) 1. to 4. if he or she limits or otherwise restricts the quantity of such merchandise which can be purchased by any buyer or if he or she fails to conspicuously disclose the reason for such sale in all advertisements relating thereto and on a label or tag on such merchandise or on a placard where the merchandise is displayed for sale.

In other words, if a retailer wants to claim an exemption they have to advertise it. Any large retailer that attempts to advertise a falsely claimed exemption is opening themselves and their records up to examination by the state.

Actually, the part you didn't highlight is the important part there. As long as you don't restrict how much anyone can buy, you can claim the exemption.

I realize that your quantity of merchandise purchased from wholesalers is limited and whether these laws are completely applicable to you may be debatable. Then again, this really isn't about your business's relationship to the law, it's about whether or not the law exists.

To address the legal status of your affairs: I don't know how you got an accusation out of what I wrote, but then again, you weren't capable of comprehending the law.........

I'm completely capable of comprehending the law, and how it actually applies to businesses here.

As previously stated, a small or independently owned business is not who is policed under a minimum markup law. It's the larger retailers. That's not to say a small business can't be guilty of violating the law, but they're far less likely to be scrutinized. As such, your personal experience really means very little when it comes to this law. I'd be hard pressed to believe that you deal with the FTC on a regular basis, if at all.

Again, I challenge you to show me all of these fines that have been levied against the big box retailers.

Lemme go ahead and help you with your next reply. It starts with "I'm a retailer" and is followed by a bunch of bullshit.

Says the man who has no claims of any credibility, nor has made any attempt to do anything but bring up the same rehashed stuff. Save us all the trouble, and drop it unless you'd like to show me where all of these cases about retailers that aren't selling fuel get dinged by it. Otherwise, you're presenting no new information, and simply rehashing an argument that no one actually cares about beyond the person at your keyboard. I don't feel like I can walk away when someone is accusing me of not understanding how the laws of the state that I operate in actually work, and how they affect people with what they do.

Sorry that I'm saying, "I'm a retailer," but you have presented nothing that makes me think anything of your credibility to interpret the law, and your holier than thou attitude gives me no reason to think that you have any valid points that are worth listening to.

If it makes you feel better, yes, in a theoretical world this law would do more than just set the price of gas, and that was what it was intended to do when it was passed. Look up any information on it though, and it only talks about the ramifications for the price of gas with it.

[wiggyx]

BBB may be a relic, but it still has teeth. I know a guy who basically ignored a few BBB registered complaints. Before you know it, the police arrived with an arrest warrant. He bonded out of jail, but the advice police gave him was that if he had at least answered the BBB complaints, it would not have escalated to that point. Filing complaints with BBB still holds sway.

FYI. A shop does not have to be registered with BBB to be accountable. This guy's shop was not BBB registered in the slightest.

You cannot be arrested based solely on BBB complaints. Someone filed charges, plain and simple. If that's what he told you, then he was lying or misinterpreted what he was told.

All the BBB can do is register and try to mediate complaints.

[Richie]

Dan. I've proven that the law exists and that it relates to far more than fuel. There is no burden on me to prove much else. You can backpeddle and challenge any aspect of it that you like, but you're really just proving that you know very little about how a real business is ran.

Since you obviously haven't owned a brick and mortar business, here's an analogy you may be able to understand. Dealing with any sort of trade bureau is pretty similar to dealing with the health department, or the fire marshall. They're not kicking in doors and handcuffing people. They send letters, they show up unannounced, they effectively linger over your shoulder and tell you what you can and can't do. And when you're disagreeable, they subpoena your records. I'm sorry if that's not enforceable enough for you, but any real business owner will tell you, they are required to deal with their local trade bureaus.

Maybe the problem here is that you've internalized something that's really not about you, or your business, and taken everything that's been said personally. That's how it appears to me at least.